945 réponses à ce sujet

[Torax]

I'm just not as quick to say all Circles are that way and needing to rebel. Kirkwall had to be the worst case scenario to justify the conflict. In particular to attempt to claim why either side is so militant. Just it's to polarized even as players. They can't even get past bias to calm down. It's just hate on mages or hate on templars. The ones who hate on the Templars being more vocal. You'd think after even just listening to Anders in game they'd be fed up with the topic by now. Not the case. Maybe they aren't playing the game anymore. Or they play with the sound off. I really hate how Anders whines and complains in Act 2 & 3. Sebastian talks about a cloud while Anders gripes and whines. How I felt about the character in general.

[stobie]

Anders seemed overly dramatic to me, and he was annoying - as well as manipulative - in Act 3. When Sebastian talked about a cloud, I wanted to kill him with my bare hands, however. And yes, this means I'm far more likely to side with the drama-side, but the cutesy snark did it for me. I wanted him dead.

[stobie]

Wait a minute! Back to the Dalish - Werewolf thing! To even initiate this, you have to say something like, "I have a better idea. Let's kill all the elves." Granted, the nice spirit lady might not go along with that, but you *do* have to suggest it in what has to be considered a wanna-be genocidal fashion.

[Benchmark]

stobie wrote...

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.

I get around it the same way I get around orphanages, daycares, rehab clinics, rest homes,  asylums, foster care, or the American family. I recognize that you will always get people in positions of authority that they shouldn't be. People with ugly weaknesses inside them that causes them to do things I find appalling when they think they can get away with it. That doesn't mean every orphanage etc is horrible, or every day care worker is going to lock kids in a van in the Walmart parking lot.

What is disgusting is that any Hawke would avoid the responsibility to looking into the claims and work in the system to have them changed. The lack of freedom in the game prevents that, so I will try and overlook the fact that I got railroaded into doing a ton of things I hated so I could do the few things I felt were needed.

[Lewie]

Who was in direct charge of the circle in Kirkwall? It seemed to be Meredith only.

That is problematic considering Orsino. Where was he through all of this?

Buying a new hat maybe.

[IanPolaris]

stobie wrote...

Wait a minute! Back to the Dalish - Werewolf thing! To even initiate this, you have to say something like, "I have a better idea. Let's kill all the elves." Granted, the nice spirit lady might not go along with that, but you *do* have to suggest it in what has to be considered a wanna-be genocidal fashion.

Except that it's not at all clear that the lines listed are the actual words said.  We know that it isn't when you harden Alistair (because he tells you what you said later one and it's much nicer than what the dialog choice indicated).  DA2 is rife with this innaccuracy and we notice it more because the protagonist is voiced.

So given that the Lady of the Forest is in charge and given she tries one last time to peacefully negotiate, I think it's a reasonable thing to conclude that you didn't actually say, "Let's kill all Elves for the Lulz".  I also note that at no time do you ever commit yourself (even after the Dalish Attack) to killing off all Dalish.  You can let some go if you want.  That's emphatically untrue for the Right of Annulment.

I am not saying that picking the Werewolves is a good choice, or a particularly moreal choice, or even the right choice, but it isn't automatically evil and it doesn't (quite) rise to the level of genocide.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Torax wrote...

I'm just not as quick to say all Circles are that way and needing to rebel. Kirkwall had to be the worst case scenario to justify the conflict.

But the Circles of Magi did rebel at the end, and this was foreshadowed with Wynne in Amaranthine when she discussed the meeting in Cumberland.

Torax wrote...

In particular to attempt to claim why either side is so militant. Just it's to polarized even as players. They can't even get past bias to calm down. It's just hate on mages or hate on templars. The ones who hate on the Templars being more vocal.

Some people disagree with the Chantry controlled Circles, and others support it.

Torax wrote...

You'd think after even just listening to Anders in game they'd be fed up with the topic by now. Not the case. Maybe they aren't playing the game anymore. Or they play with the sound off. I really hate how Anders whines and complains in Act 2 & 3.

He did have to kill Karl, his first love, because the templars illegally made him tranquil and Karl begged to die rather than live as a tranquil mage. Anders is entitled to be angry.

Torax wrote...

Sebastian talks about a cloud while Anders gripes and whines. How I felt about the character in general.

Sebastian also talks to Fenris about handing over the apostates in Hawke's group to the templars.

[Joy Divison]

Thanks for the DG quote. It looks unequivocal to me that Ian and Lob8 are correct.

[Benchmark]

IanPolaris wrote...

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).

Ok I get it. We all get it. You hate Templars. You want mages to be fuzzy bunnies at Hogwarts. You want the moral highground so bad that you are willing to use any misinformation, misinterpretation, and misrepresentation that you can.

I am personally fine if you want set that up as a premise in your personal game world, but I am kinda getting annoyed that you keep trying to define everyone elses game in your terms with no acceptance that the other sides are equally as valid.

Case in Point, your "money quote". Do you really have to pull something out of context this far? Do you do it intentionally? I will only use Lobs quote, which in itself was only a snip from a larger discussion.

"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."

So again. Not at all referencing the Kirkwall Circle, but a theoretical circle that has become so far corrupted that it is beyond control. This is not a "we had a disagreement over tea," situation. This is a "Holy handgrenades, this is some crazy ****," situation.

To call the RoA the KC would have been witnessing so much crazy **** they reasonably assume that no mages inside can be salvaged. That being the case, they would never put more Templars at risk for the mere purpose of capturing enemy mages alive, just to have them tranquilized. That was his point, all of it. That is the only thing this quote can be used to support.

It does not mention mages that showed every indication of never being corrupted by blood magic. It does not mention any mages that surrender voluntarily rather than fighting back. It does not mention what happens when a Knight Captain is questioning whether the RoA should even be called and has serious doubts about his commanders mental state.

It is not a "money quote", it is a discussion on common military sense by a commander faced with needing an RoA. If you need to call one, you make it a "leave nothing but glass" action so your soldiers don't die pointlessly trying half measures.

-Benchmark

[IanPolaris]

Benchmark,

Protest all you like, but if you capture any mages, the best they can hope for is to be tranquilled since Cullen never rescinds the Right of Annulment. That's not me saying that. That's DG saying that and with that the discussion really is over.

-Polaris

[The Angry One]

IanPolaris wrote...

Benchmark,

Protest all you like, but if you capture any mages, the best they can hope for is to be tranquilled since Cullen never rescinds the Right of Annulment. That's not me saying that. That's DG saying that and with that the discussion really is over.

-Polaris

So Cullen is just lying when he says the captured mages will be watched because that's the Templar's job, right?

[LobselVith8]

Benchmark wrote...

Ok I get it. We all get it. You hate Templars. You want mages to be fuzzy bunnies at Hogwarts. You want the moral highground so bad that you are willing to use any misinformation, misinterpretation, and misrepresentation that you can.

I think it's being addressed that mages being treated as people would get better results, which is the dicotomy that's brought up. Cullen, for instance, says mages can't be treated like people because they're weapons, so it's why some of us don't agree with the Chantry controlled Circles, particularly when it can end up like Kirkwall's own Circle of Magi. People have different reasons for supporting the Chantry controlled Circles and wanting an end to them. The debate about mages and templars never reaches a consensus, and I honestly don't expect it to even when thread after thread has demonstrated this.

Benchmark wrote...

Case in Point, your "money quote". Do you really have to pull something out of context this far? Do you do it intentionally? I will only use Lobs quote, which in itself was only a snip from a larger discussion.

It's the entire quote David Gaider provided about the Right of Annulment in a thread that asked why mages weren't all made tranquil instead of being killed in the Right of Annulment.

Benchmark wrote...

So again. Not at all referencing the Kirkwall Circle, but a theoretical circle that has become so far corrupted that it is beyond control. This is not a "we had a disagreement over tea," situation. This is a "Holy handgrenades, this is some crazy ****," situation.

Gaider didn't address the Right of Annulment in Kirkwall, but he addressed the Right of Annulment in general and why the templars don't take prisoners because they think mages could be possessed (but Cullen showed it can happen at times, and even Gaider brought up this point since they are made tranquil instead of being killed), and Meredith ordered the Right of Annulment after Anders killed the Grand Cleric. Whether the prior Rights were even justified or not is unknown to us as the protagonist, since our information is extremely limited and there is a great deal of bias with what little information we do have.

Benchmark wrote...

It does not mention mages that showed every indication of never being corrupted by blood magic. It does not mention any mages that surrender voluntarily rather than fighting back. It does not mention what happens when a Knight Captain is questioning whether the RoA should even be called and has serious doubts about his commanders mental state.

Except Knight-Captain Cullen never puts a stop to the Right of Annulment, he spares three mages and stops Meredith from trying to kill the Champion, which is odd in the pro-mage scenerio, since he seems to have no problem with the Right of Annulment being invoked against the Circle of Kirkwall but has a problem with the Champion being killed even when he's killing his way to freedom.

I suppose Cullen must have really liked Hawke...

[stobie]

IanPolaris wrote...

stobie wrote...

Wait a minute! Back to the Dalish - Werewolf thing! To even initiate this, you have to say something like, "I have a better idea. Let's kill all the elves." Granted, the nice spirit lady might not go along with that, but you *do* have to suggest it in what has to be considered a wanna-be genocidal fashion.

Except that it's not at all clear that the lines listed are the actual words said.  We know that it isn't when you harden Alistair (because he tells you what you said later one and it's much nicer than what the dialog choice indicated).  DA2 is rife with this innaccuracy and we notice it more because the protagonist is voiced.

So given that the Lady of the Forest is in charge and given she tries one last time to peacefully negotiate, I think it's a reasonable thing to conclude that you didn't actually say, "Let's kill all Elves for the Lulz".  I also note that at no time do you ever commit yourself (even after the Dalish Attack) to killing off all Dalish.  You can let some go if you want.  That's emphatically untrue for the Right of Annulment.

I am not saying that picking the Werewolves is a good choice, or a particularly moreal choice, or even the right choice, but it isn't automatically evil and it doesn't (quite) rise to the level of genocide.

-Polaris

The fact that it's legal to, in essence, 'cleanse' an area of its people is pretty bad, granted.  I'm just saying that for what you see when negotiating with the Lady, it looks like a really mean thing to do.  I felt pretty evil when I killed the werewolves, anyway, and I was extremely pro-elf.  (but as I said - it was personal.  I don't LIKE to be overwhelmed...)  And in this one, if it comes down to it, I do kill the dalish over the poor ex-wolf on the beach.  (sarcastic me doesn't have many powers of persuasion, I guess)  

The Lady is admittedly a good sort.  But the Warden, choosing to kill elves, does not seem to be.  (though Origins did let you be more of a jerk than DA2, I guess, but I always feel like I'm tarnished for those deeds!) 

In game, they speak as if blood magic in particular is contagious. (The Qunari seem to think so with even more fervour, despite giving you a blood magic necklace or ring or whatever it was...)  I remember a Cat Lady near where I live - her poor (75-god) cats got some horrible disease & she had to put them all down.  (as an aside, she refused, & they stayed in quarantine for life)   Not to say people are animals (she would see no difference) - but they speak of it in that way, rather than, 'kill them all as punishment.'  Greagoir seems to genuinely like the mages, but he treats it like a disease.   Maybe they didn't clarify it enough?  (especially since *we* can be blood mages, & though innocent & perhaps obsessive, Merrill is hardly evil in intent)  

Giving in to ultimate power is bad, and maybe warrants some restraint, but killing everyone makes no sense, unless they really do *have* to. (as with the cats)

Modifié par stobie, 20 avril 2011 - 03:03 .

[stobie]

Benchmark wrote...

stobie wrote...

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.

I get around it the same way I get around orphanages, daycares, rehab clinics, rest homes,  asylums, foster care, or the American family. I recognize that you will always get people in positions of authority that they shouldn't be. People with ugly weaknesses inside them that causes them to do things I find appalling when they think they can get away with it. That doesn't mean every orphanage etc is horrible, or every day care worker is going to lock kids in a van in the Walmart parking lot.

What is disgusting is that any Hawke would avoid the responsibility to looking into the claims and work in the system to have them changed. The lack of freedom in the game prevents that, so I will try and overlook the fact that I got railroaded into doing a ton of things I hated so I could do the few things I felt were needed.

Well, ok - but in this case, you have a kid in the Gallows talking openly about it. They also say the templars beat them.  When I first played through, I took Alrik as an isolated -and secret - incident. Maybe that's the way it is supposed to be.    But if you spare Kerras, he continues to abuse mages. In every real life situation, there's no doubt such a person can emerge & do awful things, sure.  But once their deeds are known, we rightly blame the institutions who KNOW about it & do nothing.  Had they made it more clear that no one knows, fine.  No problem.  But because you have 2 people talking openly about it, it's a little hard to accept. 

And yes, there are a lot of things that Hawke lets pass, which make no sense. Taking Bethany to the Circle?  Well, rats!  Bye!  That sort of thing.   

I really wish they either left that part out  - the Kerras part, because Alrik does come off as a rogue templar - and that they'd shown mages as something other than screaming lunatics.  It's hard for me to hate crazy - whereas manipulative, I can despise. (Petrice leaps to mind.)  

[LobselVith8]

The Angry One wrote...

So Cullen is just lying when he says the captured mages will be watched because that's the Templar's job, right?

It's one of the reasons David Gaider listed as why templars don't take captives (usually) during the Right of Annulment - the mages could escape or be possessed with demons. Whether one agrees with what the templars do or not is the reason behind all this debate over the mages and templars.

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...
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

And annulling the Circle is not for lulz, either.  Nor do you have any idea that the Dalish children survive.  You're a big fat hypocrite and can stop calling people genocidal murderers now.

[TJPags]

Addai67 wrote...
And annulling the Circle is not for lulz, either.  Nor do you have any idea that the Dalish children survive.  You're a big fat hypocrite and can stop calling people genocidal murderers now.

If Ian stops calling people genocidal mass murderers, he might well be left with nothing to say.

I see he's added gestapo to his list of catchphrases.


Makes me want to Anull the Circle next time I play. 

[stobie]

The Warden had a lot more chances to negotiate & be diplomatic. My poor Hawke tries, but Kirkwall is a pretty crazy place. Had I been forced to say, kill elves or werewolves, I would probably have stopped playing. I don't *want* to feel like I'm dipped in slime for playing a video game. (this, barring any overwhelm spells that trigger my own blood-mage-esque insanity)

I don't think the templars, those of Cullen's type, want to kill mages. They think they have no choice. Even Meredith refused the 'Tranquil Solution,' after all. Even Fenris thinks mages have their uses. (especially if a mage-Hawke is romancing him) Even the Qunari use them, albeit brutally.

I also think that intent matters. Therefore, what really *does* matter is when you click on 'kill the elves.' (or... a hem... 'Get the stupid, overwhelm happy flea bags!') In theory, the Chantry wants to help train mages so they don't annihilate themselves & others - sort of forced school, with a lobotomy if you fail. I wouldn't say that's the same as wanting to remove a race from the face of the earth/wherever just because they exist.

[stobie]

TJPags wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
And annulling the Circle is not for lulz, either.  Nor do you have any idea that the Dalish children survive.  You're a big fat hypocrite and can stop calling people genocidal murderers now.

If Ian stops calling people genocidal mass murderers, he might well be left with nothing to say.

I see he's added gestapo to his list of catchphrases.


Makes me want to Anull the Circle next time I play. 

Oooh - hate breeds hate!  Along with inspiration from being squashed under a stupid, leaping shadow werewolf, I remember some guy here saying how much he hated elves & ha-ha, he killed them all.  I wanted werewolf blood after that.   And I felt pretty bad about it (and restarted) - so don't give in to the dark side! You'll be calling people mass virtual murderers, losing sleep, & bringing up  Bad German Memories!

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...
And annulling the Circle is not for lulz, either.  Nor do you have any idea that the Dalish children survive.  You're a big fat hypocrite and can stop calling people genocidal murderers now.

Please don't use words you don't know the meaning to.  Even at it's worst interpretation (and I only argued that other interpereations were possible not that I ever sanctioned them), siding with the Werewolves is NOT genocide.  You are not deliberately trying to kill all Dalish.  You can let some go (and the game DOES tell you that some do escape).  It may be the wrong choice and even the evil choice, but it's not genocide.  As a matter of factm, I've picked the Werewolves only once and that was with an openly evil grey warden and I did so to get the acheivement (and Zathrien ticked her off by lying to her and so...evil person that she was....she took it out on his whole clan). 

The difference.  I made an evil choice knowing that it was an evil choice.  That's a distinction that seems lost of even the main writers of Dragon-Age these days.

-Polarius

[stobie]

One day, internet snark will die, & the world will be a better place...

Wiping out a Circle isn't genocide, either. It's killing people in a building. As the story is told, it's killing people who are infected with something wildly contagious & world-threatening. (this isn't clear to me, but so it seems) I didn't see that even Meredith wanted all mages everywhere to die. She just thinks they have to be brutally contained so they don't hurt anyone. Vicious & wrong, but not exactly race-eliminating.

[IanPolaris]

stobie wrote...

One day, internet snark will die, & the world will be a better place...

Wiping out a Circle isn't genocide, either. It's killing people in a building. As the story is told, it's killing people who are infected with something wildly contagious & world-threatening. (this isn't clear to me, but so it seems) I didn't see that even Meredith wanted all mages everywhere to die. She just thinks they have to be brutally contained so they don't hurt anyone. Vicious & wrong, but not exactly race-eliminating.

Yes it is.  By the legal definition used byt the Hague and the UN, if KC Meredith did what she did in our world, she would be charged with "Crimes Against Humanity: Genocide" with a count for each mage that was attacked (let alone killed) in Kirkwall. 

-Polaris

[BanksHector]

I am all for wiping out a Circle for good reason. I do not see it as genocide, BUT I have a hard time wiping out Kirkwall Circle because I see no reason behind it. This game makes it very hard to be Pro Templar from start to finish because of that. I have no problem sending people to the circle because I believe it is needed, and I have no problem killing blood mages because it is evil. If the mages would of took part in or helped with what Anders did, I would of been able to wipe it out and felt I done something decent.

IMO, IanPolaris takes it to far one way, but I see it as a more evil choice then siding with the mages.

Modifié par BanksHector, 20 avril 2011 - 04:06 .

[Maria Caliban]

louise101 wrote...

Who was in direct charge of the circle in Kirkwall? It seemed to be Meredith only.

The First Enchanter is the head of a Circle.

[stobie]

So if there was a building where everyone had some hideous disease that could annihilate the world, and it was decided to kill everyone in that building, that would be genocide? (this happened in a Star Trek episode - I almost hate myself for thinking of this...)

They're not being killed because they're mages, are they? They're being killed because they're considered infected. (and no, I don't know what that means in Thedas - but that *is* how it's described.) When Cullen says, stupidly because I'm a mage, that mages aren't like you & me, he means they're susceptible to this disease, not that they're alien beings who should die. He felt sorry for them until he saw what happens when the disease takes shape. (and he overlooks that the survivors went merrily on.) I don't see that as a desire to remove a race.


Wait - are Bioware writers beholden to International Law?  Beware the Hague!

Modifié par stobie, 20 avril 2011 - 04:04 .