243 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Master Shiori wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I didn't mention Meredith, I mentioned the templars who were "following orders."

Those weren't present when the Chantry was destroyed and Meredith invoked the RoA. They didn't see what happened first hand and could only obey orders from those in charge. It took Cullen openly defying Meredith's orders for others to turn against her.

The templars chose of their own volition to obey the orders to kill every enchanter, mage, and apprentice from the Kirkwall Circle.

Master Shiori wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If Hawke is killing templars, why would Cullen have a problem with killing Hawke? 

Because Hawke, mage or not, is the second most important person in Kirkwall, who is loved by its people. Killing him/her out of hand could cause the population to rise in revolt against the templars, even if that same population didn't really care about murdered mages and their plight.

That's why both Meredith and Orsino are desperate to have you on their side. Because you are the leader Kirkwall respects and trusts.

Hawke isn't a leader, he's recognized as the Champion. However, while I can see why Cullen would prevent a pro-templar Hawke from getting killed by Meredith, I don't see why Cullen would it being "out of hand" for a pro-mage Hawke who is killing templars to protect the mages from them.

Master Shiori wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

That doesn't mean he isn't going to make them tranquil, and he's shown no objection to the "Tranquil Solution" if Hawke brings it up to him. Regaridng your line, Cullen could be talking about the time while the mages are under arrest as the Right of Annulment is going on. I don't see why the Circles of Magi would rise up in revolution if this particular Right of Annulment wasn't as bad as the several prior Rights of Annulment were.

Cullen says that most mages would rather die than be made tranquil. Also, being made tranquil means you are no longer a danger. Therefore, there's no need for Cullen and templars to watch over tranquil or fear they might be blood mages.

If the templars are keeping the templars in custody and not killing them, then they have to watch over them during this time - it doesn't mean the mages aren't going to be made tranquil. Gaider addressed this as a possibility for mages who aren't killed in Rights of Annulment, and Cullen didn't seem to have an issue with tranquility when he is shown Alrik's papers (and Hawke even accuses him of supporting the measure).

Master Shiori wrote...

As for the RoA, it was invoked against a Circle that wasn't lost to demonic possession. Furthermore, it requires the agreement of Knight Commander and Grand Cleric  that the Circle is beyond salvation before it can be invoked. 

Meredith did so on her own initiative, against the Circle that still had dozens of mages who were entirely innocent. 

The Circle of Ferelden can be annulled even if the abominations are all put down and there are plenty of mages who aren't corrupt and innocent, which means that the Circle wasn't lost to demonic possession, but it didn't spark a revolution among the mages across the continent. If Cullen is the moderate that you seem to think he is, I don't see the mages rising up if he's sparing mages and putting an end to the Right of Annulment. I don't see the mages rising up if the Right of Annulment at Kirkwall wasn't as bad, if not worse, than the previous ones that were enacted.

Master Shiori wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

There's freedom for a few mages who Hawke helps: Ella, Emile, Terrie.  Varric even addresses in the pro-mage ending that, unlike the templar ending, there were many survivors of the Right of Annulment, and "many lived to tell the tale."

How long they lived is up to debate. Certainly past the RoA and what followed it, but after that it's anyone's guess whether or not they were hunted down or escaped to relative safety.

At least they are given the opportunity.

[88mphSlayer]

IanPolaris wrote...

BigBad wrote...

Everyone is acting like all the mages in the Gallows are not insane blood mages and/or abominations waiting to happen, when virtually every single mage Hawke meets over the course of a decade (except Bethany; as far as we know, because Merril proves that even the kindest and most good-hearted can be seduced by blood magic) does absolutely nothing but prove the Templars' point for them.

Honestly, the RoA was just waiting to happen, and Anders only gave Meredith an excuse. And then Orsino went and utterly destroyed any credibility his side may have had with the revelation of his ties to Quentin and turning into a frikken' Harvester.

1.  It is virtually certain that not all mages in the Gallows are insane bloodmages.  Indeed (in this case) if your sister is in the circle you KNOW this to be so.  Honestly (and they've admitted it) the devs cheated.  They stacked the deck and badly skewed (their term was 'we were a little over the top) the number and nature of abominations and bloodmages IMHO to make you draw this false conclusion (that all mages are this way).  As it is, you are almost certainly condemning all for the actions of a few which isn't even remotely moral or just.

2.  Meredith doesn't care.  She is loony toons.  She doesn't want to kill all the mages because of any bloodmagic or crimes that might have been committed.  Heck the criminal responsible for the destruction of the chantry is right in front of Meredith and she doesn't even care.  She just wants to slaughter all mages.  In fact when you watch her, she almost gets off on the idea (yes sexually).

-Polaris

*shrugs* if we get to use our imagination that not all mages are insane or want to use blood magic, can't we also use our imagination to say all mages are insane and use blood magic? there's certainly more fuel for the fire for believing the latter than the former

[IanPolaris]

88mphSlayer wrote...

*shrugs* if we get to use our imagination that not all mages are insane or want to use blood magic, can't we also use our imagination to say all mages are insane and use blood magic? there's certainly more fuel for the fire for believing the latter than the former

Wrong.  We KNOW that Bethany is innocent (per this particular discussion) and we are 99%+ sure (because he's too much of an idiot to be otherwise) that Emil de Launcet is innocent as well.  That's two and that's one more than necessary to make the practice completely immoral (and honestly evil).

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

88mphSlayer wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

BigBad wrote...

Everyone is acting like all the mages in the Gallows are not insane blood mages and/or abominations waiting to happen, when virtually every single mage Hawke meets over the course of a decade (except Bethany; as far as we know, because Merril proves that even the kindest and most good-hearted can be seduced by blood magic) does absolutely nothing but prove the Templars' point for them.

Honestly, the RoA was just waiting to happen, and Anders only gave Meredith an excuse. And then Orsino went and utterly destroyed any credibility his side may have had with the revelation of his ties to Quentin and turning into a frikken' Harvester.

1.  It is virtually certain that not all mages in the Gallows are insane bloodmages.  Indeed (in this case) if your sister is in the circle you KNOW this to be so.  Honestly (and they've admitted it) the devs cheated.  They stacked the deck and badly skewed (their term was 'we were a little over the top) the number and nature of abominations and bloodmages IMHO to make you draw this false conclusion (that all mages are this way).  As it is, you are almost certainly condemning all for the actions of a few which isn't even remotely moral or just.

2.  Meredith doesn't care.  She is loony toons.  She doesn't want to kill all the mages because of any bloodmagic or crimes that might have been committed.  Heck the criminal responsible for the destruction of the chantry is right in front of Meredith and she doesn't even care.  She just wants to slaughter all mages.  In fact when you watch her, she almost gets off on the idea (yes sexually).

-Polaris

*shrugs* if we get to use our imagination that not all mages are insane or want to use blood magic, can't we also use our imagination to say all mages are insane and use blood magic? there's certainly more fuel for the fire for believing the latter than the former

You mean like Bethany, Emile, Terrie, Ella, Tobrius, Solivitus...?

[88mphSlayer]

IanPolaris wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

*shrugs* if we get to use our imagination that not all mages are insane or want to use blood magic, can't we also use our imagination to say all mages are insane and use blood magic? there's certainly more fuel for the fire for believing the latter than the former

Wrong.  We KNOW that Bethany is innocent (per this particular discussion) and we are 99%+ sure (because he's too much of an idiot to be otherwise) that Emil de Launcet is innocent as well.  That's two and that's one more than necessary to make the practice completely immoral (and honestly evil).

-Polaris

so if we let Emil de Launcet goes free earlier, and we spare Bethany from Meredith's wrath, and we spare the mages who surrender during the ROI, then what else is there? the tranquil?

[IanPolaris]

88mphSlayer wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

*shrugs* if we get to use our imagination that not all mages are insane or want to use blood magic, can't we also use our imagination to say all mages are insane and use blood magic? there's certainly more fuel for the fire for believing the latter than the former

Wrong.  We KNOW that Bethany is innocent (per this particular discussion) and we are 99%+ sure (because he's too much of an idiot to be otherwise) that Emil de Launcet is innocent as well.  That's two and that's one more than necessary to make the practice completely immoral (and honestly evil).

-Polaris

so if we let Emil de Launcet goes free earlier, and we spare Bethany from Meredith's wrath, and we spare the mages who surrender during the ROI, then what else is there? the tranquil?

You DON"T KNOW and that's the point.  If you are going to slaughter all mages in a circle than morally you have to be sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that those mages (ALL OF THEM) are guilty and present a real, immediate, and dire threat to everyone else's very existance.   It doesn't even come close to that.

If there is ANY doubt, then the RoA and Meredith are acting wrongly and immorally.

-Polaris

[88mphSlayer]

LobselVith8 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

BigBad wrote...

Everyone is acting like all the mages in the Gallows are not insane blood mages and/or abominations waiting to happen, when virtually every single mage Hawke meets over the course of a decade (except Bethany; as far as we know, because Merril proves that even the kindest and most good-hearted can be seduced by blood magic) does absolutely nothing but prove the Templars' point for them.

Honestly, the RoA was just waiting to happen, and Anders only gave Meredith an excuse. And then Orsino went and utterly destroyed any credibility his side may have had with the revelation of his ties to Quentin and turning into a frikken' Harvester.

1.  It is virtually certain that not all mages in the Gallows are insane bloodmages.  Indeed (in this case) if your sister is in the circle you KNOW this to be so.  Honestly (and they've admitted it) the devs cheated.  They stacked the deck and badly skewed (their term was 'we were a little over the top) the number and nature of abominations and bloodmages IMHO to make you draw this false conclusion (that all mages are this way).  As it is, you are almost certainly condemning all for the actions of a few which isn't even remotely moral or just.

2.  Meredith doesn't care.  She is loony toons.  She doesn't want to kill all the mages because of any bloodmagic or crimes that might have been committed.  Heck the criminal responsible for the destruction of the chantry is right in front of Meredith and she doesn't even care.  She just wants to slaughter all mages.  In fact when you watch her, she almost gets off on the idea (yes sexually).

-Polaris

*shrugs* if we get to use our imagination that not all mages are insane or want to use blood magic, can't we also use our imagination to say all mages are insane and use blood magic? there's certainly more fuel for the fire for believing the latter than the former

You mean like Bethany, Emile, Terrie, Ella, Tobrius, Solivitus...?

and should we write down all the mages who turn out bad as well? let's conjecture here - say 50% of the circle is corrupted and impossible to save, on top of that Orsino is calling for rebellion in whatever way he can, if he's not calling for rebellion then other mages are plotting the assassination of the Knight Commander, if they aren't doing that then they're plotting with rebel templars to bring down Meredith as well... how do you solve that?

[TJPags]

IanPolaris wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

*shrugs* if we get to use our imagination that not all mages are insane or want to use blood magic, can't we also use our imagination to say all mages are insane and use blood magic? there's certainly more fuel for the fire for believing the latter than the former

Wrong.  We KNOW that Bethany is innocent (per this particular discussion) and we are 99%+ sure (because he's too much of an idiot to be otherwise) that Emil de Launcet is innocent as well.  That's two and that's one more than necessary to make the practice completely immoral (and honestly evil).

-Polaris

so if we let Emil de Launcet goes free earlier, and we spare Bethany from Meredith's wrath, and we spare the mages who surrender during the ROI, then what else is there? the tranquil?

You DON"T KNOW and that's the point.  If you are going to slaughter all mages in a circle than morally you have to be sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that those mages (ALL OF THEM) are guilty and present a real, immediate, and dire threat to everyone else's very existance.   It doesn't even come close to that.

If there is ANY doubt, then the RoA and Meredith are acting wrongly and immorally.

-Polaris

You don't know either.  But you insist you're right.

*shrug* 

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
You don't know either.  But you insist you're right.

*shrug* 

But he's not advocating the death of anyone based on that ignorance.

[IanPolaris]

88mphSlayer wrote...
and should we write down all the mages who turn out bad as well? let's conjecture here - say 50% of the circle is corrupted and impossible to save, on top of that Orsino is calling for rebellion in whatever way he can, if he's not calling for rebellion then other mages are plotting the assassination of the Knight Commander, if they aren't doing that then they're plotting with rebel templars to bring down Meredith as well... how do you solve that?

You don't know it's anywhere near that high.  The Devs have admitted badly skewing the 'insane bloodmage" sample you see to encourage the player to draw this very conclusion and even they've admitted they "went over the top".  That's the nice version.  I call it dishonestly cooking the data.

It's also irrelevant because:

1.  We KNOW we can accurately and reliably detect both bloodmagic and abominations so we don't HAVE to guess (stand up and take a bow Merrill and Anders).  Such resources ARE available to the Templars if they'd get off their anti-mage kick long enough to look for and develope such resources themselves.

2.  We deal with the problem as it arises.  You DO NOT kill an entire group because some might be a threat.  The legal term for that is genocide.  It's a crime punishable by death.

-Polaris

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
You don't know either.  But you insist you're right.

*shrug* 

But he's not advocating the death of anyone based on that ignorance.

Just the Templars he kills while defending the mages.

[IanPolaris]

TJPags wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
You don't know either.  But you insist you're right.

*shrug* 

But he's not advocating the death of anyone based on that ignorance.

Just the Templars he kills while defending the mages.

That is acceptable.  The Templars CHOSE to follow the order they were given and CHOSE to be Templars in the first place.  Such deaths are an act of war.  Ugly but not immoral.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

88mphSlayer wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

*shrugs* if we get to use our imagination that not all mages are insane or want to use blood magic, can't we also use our imagination to say all mages are insane and use blood magic? there's certainly more fuel for the fire for believing the latter than the former

You mean like Bethany, Emile, Terrie, Ella, Tobrius, Solivitus...?

and should we write down all the mages who turn out bad as well? let's conjecture here - say 50% of the circle is corrupted and impossible to save, on top of that Orsino is calling for rebellion in whatever way he can, if he's not calling for rebellion then other mages are plotting the assassination of the Knight Commander, if they aren't doing that then they're plotting with rebel templars to bring down Meredith as well... how do you solve that?

If you're going to ask whether we can "say all mages are insane and use blood magic," you should expect a response. Considering that the Circle of Kirkwall is housed in a former Tevinter prison that was intended to house thousands of slaves, and the Circle of Kirkwall is the only remaining Circle of Magi in the Free Marches after the destruction of the Starkhaven Circle, it likely has a large population. From all the men, women, and children living in the Gallows, our encounters with them are extremely limited. The most exposure we get to the Circle mages is with First Enchanter Orsino and enchanter Bethany, who couldn't be more dissimilar.

Also, Ser Thrask and his renegade templars and mages are plotting to remove a dictator from power.

[TJPags]

IanPolaris wrote...

TJPags wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
You don't know either.  But you insist you're right.

*shrug* 

But he's not advocating the death of anyone based on that ignorance.

Just the Templars he kills while defending the mages.

That is acceptable.  The Templars CHOSE to follow the order they were given and CHOSE to be Templars in the first place.  Such deaths are an act of war.  Ugly but not immoral.

-Polaris

I'm sure police and soldiers all over the world rejoice to hear that it's okay to kill people like them, since they chose the job.

[88mphSlayer]

IanPolaris wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...
and should we write down all the mages who turn out bad as well? let's conjecture here - say 50% of the circle is corrupted and impossible to save, on top of that Orsino is calling for rebellion in whatever way he can, if he's not calling for rebellion then other mages are plotting the assassination of the Knight Commander, if they aren't doing that then they're plotting with rebel templars to bring down Meredith as well... how do you solve that?

You don't know it's anywhere near that high.  The Devs have admitted badly skewing the 'insane bloodmage" sample you see to encourage the player to draw this very conclusion and even they've admitted they "went over the top".  That's the nice version.  I call it dishonestly cooking the data.

It's also irrelevant because:

1.  We KNOW we can accurately and reliably detect both bloodmagic and abominations so we don't HAVE to guess (stand up and take a bow Merrill and Anders).  Such resources ARE available to the Templars if they'd get off their anti-mage kick long enough to look for and develope such resources themselves.

2.  We deal with the problem as it arises.  You DO NOT kill an entire group because some might be a threat.  The legal term for that is genocide.  It's a crime punishable by death.

-Polaris

if the devs screwed up in storytelling then this entire argument is compromised, nobody is immoral or moral because the story is inacurate to begin with

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...

You don't know either.  But you insist you're right.

*shrug* 

But he's not advocating the death of anyone based on that ignorance.

Just the Templars he kills while defending the mages.

Because the templars are going to murder all the mages otherwise.

[88mphSlayer]

LobselVith8 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

*shrugs* if we get to use our imagination that not all mages are insane or want to use blood magic, can't we also use our imagination to say all mages are insane and use blood magic? there's certainly more fuel for the fire for believing the latter than the former

You mean like Bethany, Emile, Terrie, Ella, Tobrius, Solivitus...?

and should we write down all the mages who turn out bad as well? let's conjecture here - say 50% of the circle is corrupted and impossible to save, on top of that Orsino is calling for rebellion in whatever way he can, if he's not calling for rebellion then other mages are plotting the assassination of the Knight Commander, if they aren't doing that then they're plotting with rebel templars to bring down Meredith as well... how do you solve that?

If you're going to ask whether we can "say all mages are insane and use blood magic," you should expect a response. Considering that the Circle of Kirkwall is housed in a former Tevinter prison that was intended to house thousands of slaves, and the Circle of Kirkwall is the only remaining Circle of Magi in the Free Marches after the destruction of the Starkhaven Circle, it likely has a large population. From all the men, women, and children living in the Gallows, our encounters with them are extremely limited. The most exposure we get to the Circle mages is with First Enchanter Orsino and enchanter Bethany, who couldn't be more dissimilar.

Also, Ser Thrask and his renegade templars and mages are plotting to remove a dictator from power.

it's the issue of using imagination to fill the gaps, rather than the evidence provided to us in the game

[LobselVith8]

88mphSlayer wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If you're going to ask whether we can "say all mages are insane and use blood magic," you should expect a response. Considering that the Circle of Kirkwall is housed in a former Tevinter prison that was intended to house thousands of slaves, and the Circle of Kirkwall is the only remaining Circle of Magi in the Free Marches after the destruction of the Starkhaven Circle, it likely has a large population. From all the men, women, and children living in the Gallows, our encounters with them are extremely limited. The most exposure we get to the Circle mages is with First Enchanter Orsino and enchanter Bethany, who couldn't be more dissimilar.

Also, Ser Thrask and his renegade templars and mages are plotting to remove a dictator from power.

it's the issue of using imagination to fill the gaps, rather than the evidence provided to us in the game

Except we know that some of the Circle mages we've met aren't insane blood mages, so not all of them can be insane blood mages.

[jonesd]

You can claim damage control and that is all fine. But honestly choosing Templars means killing Bethany. Sure since we now know we can save her you can use that knowledge on different play throughs, but if you don't know what is going to happen you have to assume she will die. You are saying "yes, lets kill all the mages."

My first play through was as a mage and I thought I was going to have to kill Carver (he was a templar). I suppose you can argue that you maybe intend to side with the templars to get an opportunity to betray them and save Bethany.  That would be stupid though. It would make more sense to side with the mages that way you would have more forces to fight the templars.

Modifié par jonesd, 06 mai 2011 - 12:25 .

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...

You don't know either.  But you insist you're right.

*shrug* 

But he's not advocating the death of anyone based on that ignorance.

Just the Templars he kills while defending the mages.

Because the templars are going to murder all the mages otherwise.

Some of us feel that's justified and warranted.

Personally, I see it as executing criminals.

Modifié par TJPags, 06 mai 2011 - 12:26 .

[IanPolaris]

TJPags wrote...

I'm sure police and soldiers all over the world rejoice to hear that it's okay to kill people like them, since they chose the job.

I think the police and soldiers all over the world (I used to be one) would give what I said a collective yawn.  Putting your life on the line and being a target is part of the job you knowingly signed on for!  At least in the US, that is made extremely (and sometimes brutally) plain if not by the recruiter than certainly in boot.

-Polaris

[Rifneno]

TJPags wrote...

Some of us feel that's justified and warranted.

Personally, I see it as executing criminals.

Fair enough.  That's how I see Anders blowing up the Chantry.  

[IanPolaris]

TJPags wrote...

Some of us feel that's justified and warranted.

Personally, I see it as executing criminals.

So if a very dangerous terrorist who is rumored to have a suitcase nuke is in the area, and the only thing you knnow is that he or she has green eyes, then it is justified and warrented to round up all people in the city and EXECUTE  THEM without trial because they have green eyes.

Nice.  When you remove all the fru-fru, that's what you are saying.

-Polaris

[TJPags]

Rifneno wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Some of us feel that's justified and warranted.

Personally, I see it as executing criminals.

Fair enough.  That's how I see Anders blowing up the Chantry.  

Fair enough.

Your game, your choice.

[TJPags]

IanPolaris wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Some of us feel that's justified and warranted.

Personally, I see it as executing criminals.

So if a very dangerous terrorist who is rumored to have a suitcase nuke is in the area, and the only thing you knnow is that he or she has green eyes, then it is justified and warrented to round up all people in the city and EXECUTE  THEM without trial because they have green eyes.

Nice.  When you remove all the fru-fru, that's what you are saying.

-Polaris

Your analogies are so over the top insanely absurd they make me laugh.