42 réponses à ce sujet

[Foolsfolly]

Hawke can't stop the war. Hawke couldn't start the war, stale the war, or prevent the war. Hawke can't do anything and had nothing to do with the reasons for the war anyway.

If anyone can stop the war, it'd be the Divine.

[IanPolaris]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Hawke can't stop the war. Hawke couldn't start the war, stale the war, or prevent the war. Hawke can't do anything and had nothing to do with the reasons for the war anyway.

If anyone can stop the war, it'd be the Divine.

At the time Cassandra is interrogating Varric, I don't think even the Divine can stop the war.  During the actual DA2 story, the Divine could have.  There is someone else who had the power to stop the war along along (at least postpone it) and didn't:  Grand Cleric Elthina.

Now, the hatred is out in the open.  The Mages openly despise the Chantry and will never submit to them again (which is not saying that many aren't devout Andrastians because many probably are).  The Templars are revealing their true colors and want to kill/tranquil all mages no compromises.

Given that both groups view the Chantry as the problem, the Chantry's influence in the coming war will be essentially nil.  IMHO the agents that will ultimately stop/decide this war are the secular rulers of Thedas, and I for one think they will all do a "King Alistair" and nationalize magic.

-Polaris

[rma2110]

I think Hawke could be someone the moderates on both sides could rally around. Even as a mage, Hawke was respected by Templars like Thrask and Cullen.

[IanPolaris]

rma2110 wrote...

I think Hawke could be someone the moderates on both sides could rally around. Even as a mage, Hawke was respected by Templars like Thrask and Cullen.

Thrask yes, Cullen no.  Cullen doesn't even realize that Hawke is a mage (in spite of casting spells in his face) until act 3 and Cullen gets very cold when he figures it out.

There is a thousand years of hate built up on both sides.  War is inevitable.

-Polaris

[ddv.rsa]

Vicious wrote...

And both the Warden and Hawke are missing.

And we'll probably never see them again. Heroes have dissappeared from Thedas throughout history if you've read the codex. And they have never come back.

Obviously a HUGE plot point that will merely be glossed over in DA3.

They must have all gone through the Omega-4 relay. Joker mentions some of the ships look ancient.

[ddv.rsa]

IanPolaris wrote...

Now, the hatred is out in the open.  The Mages openly despise the Chantry and will never submit to them again (which is not saying that many aren't devout Andrastians because many probably are).  The Templars are revealing their true colors and want to kill/tranquil all mages no compromises.

Given that both groups view the Chantry as the problem, the Chantry's influence in the coming war will be essentially nil.

-Polaris

Where did you get this info?

[IanPolaris]

ddv.rsa wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Now, the hatred is out in the open.  The Mages openly despise the Chantry and will never submit to them again (which is not saying that many aren't devout Andrastians because many probably are).  The Templars are revealing their true colors and want to kill/tranquil all mages no compromises.

Given that both groups view the Chantry as the problem, the Chantry's influence in the coming war will be essentially nil.

-Polaris

Where did you get this info?

Listen to Orsino.  Heck listen to Bethany at the very end and Betheny is a moderate.  For that matter listen to Wynne (almost a Chantry apologist) in DAA.  The only reason the mages stayed associated with the Chantry in Cumberland during DAA was becasue Wynne (apparently successfully) argued that the Chantry would rather see magesdead than free.

Now Kirkwall has shown that mages are dead on the whim of any Knight-Commnander that goes fruit-loop.  There is NO WAY that the mages will ever consent to being under Chantry control again.  If you think I a wrong, then you, sir, haven't been paying attention.

As for the Templars, remember that originally the Templars were called Inquistors and they were a highly anti-magic branch of the original Andrastian Cults.  We are told that the Templars have rebelled against the Chantry as well specifically to hunt mages (Varric says this but Cassandra doesn't deny it).  That along with what Cullen said about Ser Alrik's tranquil solution and "mages aren't really people" (which seems to pass for mainstream templar thinking) again says everything you need to know.

Do either groups specifically state the bolded sections?  No.  Are we told that this is the case for both rather bluntly?  Oh yes.

-Polaris

[ddv.rsa]

IanPolaris wrote...
Now Kirkwall has shown that mages are dead on the whim of any
Knight-Commnander that goes fruit-loop.  There is NO WAY that the mages
will ever consent to being under Chantry control again.  If you think I a wrong, then you, sir, haven't been paying attention.

You're speculating. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I don't know. But it wouldn't be the first time you've been wrong. If the mages see that they've lost I suspect many would rather surrender than go down in a blaze of glory. 

The problem is that you're essentially claiming to know how DA3 will deal with the mage / templar conflict: massacre every last mage or total freedom.

[IanPolaris]

ddv.rsa wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Now Kirkwall has shown that mages are dead on the whim of any
Knight-Commnander that goes fruit-loop.  There is NO WAY that the mages
will ever consent to being under Chantry control again.  If you think I a wrong, then you, sir, haven't been paying attention.

You're speculating. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I don't know. But it wouldn't be the first time you've been wrong. If the mages see that they've lost I suspect many would rather surrender than go down in a blaze of glory. 

The problem is that you're essentially claiming to know how DA3 will deal with the mage / templar conflict: massacre every last mage or total freedom.

When it comes to DA3, everybody is speculating so sue me.  I am tired of this, really.  My speculation is firmly based on the game lore and reactions of both sides to this point and I stand by it.  The Mages have revolted not because they thought they could win and take over.  They did so because after Kirkwall (and Varic makes this very plain), they had nothing left to lose....not even their lives.

When you corner a person that has nothing left to lose, they tend to be rather "unreasonable" as you would put it.  I see absolutely no reason why the Mages would ever consent to live under chantry control again given that they've literally put their lives on the line to be free of it.  That's based on strong game lore btw so please deal with it.

The Chantry is disliked if not hated by both sides.  If a peace is possible, it won't be done via the Chantry.

...and yes Revolutions do tend to be dominate by extremists on both sides, especiacally when one side (the mages) have essentially been told that to surrender to the Chantry is to die (at least that is the lesson that the mages are taking from Kirkwall and IMHO justifiably so).

-Polaris

[Herr Uhl]

IanPolaris wrote...

When it comes to DA3, everybody is speculating so sue me.  I am tired of this, really.  My speculation is firmly based on the game lore and reactions of both sides to this point and I stand by it.

That is the problem, you present your speculation as fact. Acknowledge that it is just that, speculation.

IanPolaris wrote...

The Chantry is disliked if not hated by both sides.  If a peace is possible, it won't be done via the Chantry.

I very much doubt that as I think DA3 will have a seeker PC.

[IanPolaris]

Herr Uhl wrote...
I very much doubt that as I think DA3 will have a seeker PC.

The same people who were too incompetant to keep an eye of KC Meridith for ten years.....

Wonderful.

If that's the case, I will be an EX-customer of Bioware.

-Polaris

[ddv.rsa]

IanPolaris wrote...

When it comes to DA3, everybody is speculating so sue me.  I am tired of this, really.  My speculation is firmly based on the game lore and reactions of both sides to this point and I stand by it.  

Sure. But you take it a step further and treat your speculation as fact.

The Mages have revolted not because they thought they could win and take over.  They did so because after Kirkwall (and Varic makes this very plain), they had nothing left to lose....not even their lives.

When you corner a person that has nothing left to lose, they tend to be rather "unreasonable" as you would put it.  I see absolutely no reason why the Mages would ever consent to live under chantry control again given that they've literally put their lives on the line to be free of it.  That's based on strong game lore btw so please deal with it.

I don't see this. How does Varric make it clear that the lives of mages everywhere are in danger? As far as I'm aware no one declares open season on mages.

The Chantry is disliked if not hated by both sides.  If a peace is possible, it won't be done via the Chantry.

...and yes Revolutions do tend to be dominate by extremists on both sides, especiacally when one side (the mages) have essentially been told that to surrender to the Chantry is to die (at least that is the lesson that the mages are taking from Kirkwall and IMHO justifiably so).

-Polaris

The templars and all mages hate the chantry? I have a hard time accepting that. I also don't see the death sentence passed down on all mages that you keep waving around. Sure, Meredith annulled the Kirkwall circle. But no mage outside Kirkwall had their life threatened by her actions.

[IanPolaris]

ddv.rsa wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

When it comes to DA3, everybody is speculating so sue me.  I am tired of this, really.  My speculation is firmly based on the game lore and reactions of both sides to this point and I stand by it.  

Sure. But you take it a step further and treat your speculation as fact.

What I said was only speculation if you drop a hammer and speculate it will hit the ground.  After a thousand years of being enslaved by the Chantry and that IS how the mages see it, there is no way they will return to it now that they've revolted.  Saying otherwise shows a shocking lack of understanding of human nature.

The Mages have revolted not because they thought they could win and take over.  They did so because after Kirkwall (and Varic makes this very plain), they had nothing left to lose....not even their lives.

When you corner a person that has nothing left to lose, they tend to be rather "unreasonable" as you would put it.  I see absolutely no reason why the Mages would ever consent to live under chantry control again given that they've literally put their lives on the line to be free of it.  That's based on strong game lore btw so please deal with it.

I don't see this. How does Varric make it clear that the lives of mages everywhere are in danger? As far as I'm aware no one declares open season on mages.

The Templars have rebelled against the chantry specifically to HUNT mages.  What the heck do you think that means?  It means to find and exterminate them.  Indeed that was what the Templars origianlly were.  They were a radical anti-magic sect of Andrastians that the Chantry later incorporated.  Not only that, but Kirkwall showed in the most brutal possible way that the Chantry doesn't care about the lives of mages and has no intention of enforcing even it's own laws regarding the Templars.  After all Meredithy was allowed to run wild for over ten years flouting even Chantry laws defining mage rights with no reaction at all (and the Seekers should be ashamed of themselves).

That was the final straw.  Even in DAA we are told that the only thing holding the mages back was the idea that teh Chantry would raher see them dead than free....and I've seen nothing to suggest that Wynne is wrong about this.  What Kirkwall proved is the Chantry doesn't really care if the mages are dead even if they are in the circle.  That means that the mages literally have nothing to lose.

The Chantry is disliked if not hated by both sides.  If a peace is possible, it won't be done via the Chantry.

...and yes Revolutions do tend to be dominate by extremists on both sides, especiacally when one side (the mages) have essentially been told that to surrender to the Chantry is to die (at least that is the lesson that the mages are taking from Kirkwall and IMHO justifiably so).

-Polaris

The templars and all mages hate the chantry? I have a hard time accepting that. I also don't see the death sentence passed down on all mages that you keep waving around. Sure, Meredith annulled the Kirkwall circle. But no mage outside Kirkwall had their life threatened by her actions.

I said disliked not hated.  Let's keep the quotations honest please.  As for mages disliking the chantry, do I really have to explain that?  That doesn't mean that many (perhaps even most) aren't devout in their own way, but you can be devout and still dislike (or even hate) the political side of your church without being disloyal to your god.  As for mages outside of Kirkwall being threatened, it's called precedence.  The Divine allowed Meredith to run wild with no repercussions and permitted her to unilaterally slaughter all mages in Kirkwall with zero oversight.

If I were a mage elsewhere, I would consider that precedent to be a very dire threat...and so would you if you were a mage if you were honest about it.

-Polaris

[Dean_the_Young]

ThomasBlaine wrote...

Did you actually manage to roleplay that in the game, with all the railroading?

Railroading is actually irrelevant to roleplaying. It subverts our choices, but role playing doesn't mean that our character's decisions are supreme: it means reacting (and acting) as we are inclined, whether the surrounding world is favorable to that or not. Asking for something nicely and being told 'no' may be railroading, but it isn't infringing on role playing.

[LobselVith8]

I think Leliana and Cassandra credit Hawke with far more of a role in the mage revolution than he actually had. Cassandra does mention to Varric that either Hawke as an apostate or Hawke with his apostate sister were spreading subversion against the Chantry, but I don't think Hawke really has any ability to stop the war. What I wonder is whether the protagonist of DA3 will have any ability to impact the outcome of the war between the templars and the mages, or whether we'll have an outcome forced on us regardless of what we do.

[AlexXIV]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I think Leliana and Cassandra credit Hawke with far more of a role in the mage revolution than he actually had. Cassandra does mention to Varric that either Hawke as an apostate or Hawke with his apostate sister were spreading subversion against the Chantry, but I don't think Hawke really has any ability to stop the war. What I wonder is whether the protagonist of DA3 will have any ability to impact the outcome of the war between the templars and the mages, or whether we'll have an outcome forced on us regardless of what we do.

Cassandra and Leliana want to get to the bottom of what started the war. And there on the bottom is Hawke, Cullen and maybe Anders because Meredith and Orsino are dead by then. And it seems that Hawke is  a symbol by then for either the mages or the templars. Deserved or not.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 19 avril 2011 - 07:00 .

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I think Leliana and Cassandra credit Hawke with far more of a role in the mage revolution than he actually had. Cassandra does mention to Varric that either Hawke as an apostate or Hawke with his apostate sister were spreading subversion against the Chantry, but I don't think Hawke really has any ability to stop the war. What I wonder is whether the protagonist of DA3 will have any ability to impact the outcome of the war between the templars and the mages, or whether we'll have an outcome forced on us regardless of what we do.

Based on what I am seeing from Bioware lately, my bet is with the later (bolded) guess.

-Polaris

[AlexXIV]

IanPolaris wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I think Leliana and Cassandra credit Hawke with far more of a role in the mage revolution than he actually had. Cassandra does mention to Varric that either Hawke as an apostate or Hawke with his apostate sister were spreading subversion against the Chantry, but I don't think Hawke really has any ability to stop the war. What I wonder is whether the protagonist of DA3 will have any ability to impact the outcome of the war between the templars and the mages, or whether we'll have an outcome forced on us regardless of what we do.

Based on what I am seeing from Bioware lately, my bet is with the later (bolded) guess.

-Polaris

Well for DA2 they have the 'middle game' excuse. If DA3 isn't another 'middle game' followed by another sequel then I don't see why the people shouldn't have more choice than in DA2.