1207 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

Cassandra clearly considers herself to still be working for the Chantry, and is working with Leliana, the "Left hand of the Divine". Though of course the "Chantry has fallen to pieces", so there's likely a pro-templar faction preaching holy war against the mages.

I think you can see the chantry from Lowtown

Chantry, before Anders

No Chantry, after Anders

[LobselVith8]

Addai67 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

So he made sure there was going to be an Exalted March.  Brilliant plan.

It always makes me chuckle when people talk about things that mages guaranteed to happen when we know for a fact they didn't happen by the ending.

So that whole world war thing, Cass was just making that up I guess?

Forget it.  Talking to you and LobselVith is head <--> wall.

Should I apologize that I pointed out there isn't an Exalted March? Or should I point out that the war is between the mages and the templars, who left the Chantry to hunt the mages?

[GavrielKay]

Isn't all of the exalted march stuff in DLC content? I never bought Sebastian and I don't remember any of that. If it's DLC then hopefully it isn't canon and there's a "regular" war between Templars and mages with the Chantry trying to figure out how to regain control.

[LobselVith8]

GavrielKay wrote...

Isn't all of the exalted march stuff in DLC content? I never bought Sebastian and I don't remember any of that. If it's DLC then hopefully it isn't canon and there's a "regular" war between Templars and mages with the Chantry trying to figure out how to regain control.

Sister Nightingale (Leliana) says the Divine will launch an Exalted March against Kirkwall, because Leliana thinks the Resolutionists are behind all the troubles, a group we only hear about and encounter once in "Faith" (the DLC quest in Act III), which calls into question Leliana's intelligence since nobles, commoners, mages, and even some templars have issue with Meredith becoming the de facto Viscount for three years. However, no Exalted March is launched because the Right of Annulment happens.

[GavrielKay]

Is Leliana only present if you have Sebastian? I never saw her.

[HSHAW]

GavrielKay wrote...

Is Leliana only present if you have Sebastian? I never saw her.

Yes, she only appears in Sebastian's act 3 companion quest.

Modifié par HSHAW, 26 mai 2011 - 05:10 .

[Addai]

GavrielKay wrote...
World war of the mage circles vs. the Templars.  I never read it as an exalted march by the Chantry.  Doesn't it say the Templars have left the Chantry to pursue the mages on their own?  At this point it is probably so spread out and guerilla warfare like (since the mages are a much smaller force) that it wouldn't seem like an exalted march at all even if one had been called.

I interpreted it simply that there were factions which had rebelled against "official" policy.  How does anyone conclude that the Chantry is not involved in the war when the Circles are all rebelling?  It would necessitate, on the Chantry's part, multiple annullments and military engagements rather than just one.  Trying to argue that Anders actually prevented bloodshed, that's just laughable.

[GavrielKay]

Thanks HSHAW. So in my playthroughs, we had no idea that the Divine was paying any attention at all and Anders couldn't have factored that into his plan.

[GavrielKay]

Addai67 wrote...

I interpreted it simply that there were factions which had rebelled against "official" policy.  How does anyone conclude that the Chantry is not involved in the war when the Circles are all rebelling?  It would necessitate, on the Chantry's part, multiple annullments and military engagements rather than just one.  Trying to argue that Anders actually prevented bloodshed, that's just laughable.

I didn't say "not involved" but that it wouldn't have had to be an "Exalted March."  Espeically if the Templars, who would have to do the marching, were already gone rogue and hunting the mages on their own.

As far as whether Anders prevented bloodshed...  I don't know.  It depends on time frame and scale.  If 10,000 people die in the war, but 20,000 mages would have died in captivity over the next 1000 years of Chantry domination then Anders would figure he did the right thing. 

You may not agree, since the game never gives us any reliable information to make an informed opinion anyway.  But I would figure that Anders is thinking long term and thinking of the mages as victims of the Chantry.  Anders speaks in the long term about mages being one day able to marry and have families, so I feel quite justified in thinking he's counting long term for bloodshed as well.

As far as Anders and some of us players are concerned...  the mages who are abducted as children and held prisoner for life are victims of the Chantry.  Those innocent victims have been piling up for 1000 years and that should matter.

Modifié par GavrielKay, 26 mai 2011 - 05:44 .

[LobselVith8]

Addai67 wrote...

I interpreted it simply that there were factions which had rebelled against "official" policy.  How does anyone conclude that the Chantry is not involved in the war when the Circles are all rebelling? 

Since Varric since the templars left the Chantry specifically to hunt the mages. We aren't provided with any info on what the Chantry is doing.

Addai67 wrote...

It would necessitate, on the Chantry's part, multiple annullments and military engagements rather than just one.  Trying to argue that Anders actually prevented bloodshed, that's just laughable.

Except there's no mention of the Chantry having any involvement, only that the Chantry is in "pieces." You're free to speculate on what could be the case, but the only facts we have are that the Chantry lost the Circles when the mages rose up when they saw that the templars could be defied, and that the templars left the Chantry to hunt the mages.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 26 mai 2011 - 06:25 .

[Silfren]

Xilizhra wrote...


The dwarves are the ones who mine the stuff; they should have license to sell it to whom they choose.

...which would defeat the idea of mages having a monopoly, don't you realize, making the question of it being a bad idea a completely moot point.

[Silfren]

Addai67 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Indeed, which is why the rationale you're using is flawed.  Best to talk about direct personal responsibility, not something more diffuse and second-hand- all Chantry priests being complicit for the acts of a few, etc.  Although, what you're talking about here is retribution and that's another thing entirely.  Annulment is intended to be a preventative, to save other innocent lives.

Oddly enough, the Annulment Meredith was invoking was most assuredly retributive, and not preventative at all.

It's more complicated than that.  She mentions the mob, which will assuredly want an eye for an eye, but Hawke's speech in the templar ending mentions staving off a full-scale mage rebellion.

No, it isn't more complicated than that.  Meredith was looking for an excuse to Annul the Circle well before Anders blew up the Chantry.  She used his action as an excuse to follow through with it.  She was eager tokill the mages, and her statement about the people wanting blood is a ridiculously flimsy excuse.  If it had been true, it would have been just to strip Anders of his mana and turn him over to the lynchmob.  But don't sit there and try to claim that an angry mob's demand makes it necessary to slaughter innocent people.  Between the Guard and her templars, Meredith could easily have maintained order among the populace.

What Hawke says after the Right has been invoked has nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons for invoking it in the first place.  How many times does it have to be said that you cannot point to the consequences of an action as justification for that action in the first place?  The Circle mages do not rebel until the Right has been called, making it just blatantly stupid to claim that the rebellion is the reason for the Annulment.

[GavrielKay]

Silfren wrote...

...But don't sit there and try to claim that an angry mob's demand makes it necessary to slaughter innocent people.  Between the Guard and her templars, Meredith could easily have maintained order among the populace.

The lynch mob is actually one of the worst "justifications" for calling the RoA.  I'm surprised the writers even put it in there. 

1)  There's the fact that, as you point out, Meredith had asked for permission to do the RoA long before that night. 
2)  Meredith doesn't give a darn about public outcries when she prevents the appointment of a proper Viscount
3)  The mages in the circle were Meredith's responsibility, not the lynch mob.  She had a duty to protect the innocent mages from the mob, not the other way around.
4)  Going along with the whims of a bloodthirsty crowd is pretty much never the "right" thing to do

There are probably more reasons, but I think the whole thing is ridiculous based on the first point anyway.

[Addai]

Silfren wrote...
No, it isn't more complicated than that.  Meredith was looking for an excuse to Annul the Circle well before Anders blew up the Chantry.  She used his action as an excuse to follow through with it.  She was eager tokill the mages, and her statement about the people wanting blood is a ridiculously flimsy excuse.  If it had been true, it would have been just to strip Anders of his mana and turn him over to the lynchmob.  But don't sit there and try to claim that an angry mob's demand makes it necessary to slaughter innocent people.  Between the Guard and her templars, Meredith could easily have maintained order among the populace.

Just because you don't buy Meredith's rationale (and I never said she didn't want to all along- Elthina was the one who stood in her way) doesn't mean that there aren't others.  Meredith already assumes the Circle is hopelessly corrupt, but Hawke can find other reasons to agree with her than just the one she gives.  "Easily" maintained order?  Wow, well... whatever.  And, I don't appreciate the tone of your response.

[Addai]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Except there's no mention of the Chantry having any involvement, only that the Chantry is in "pieces." You're free to speculate on what could be the case, but the only facts we have are that the Chantry lost the Circles when the mages rose up when they saw that the templars could be defied, and that the templars left the Chantry to hunt the mages.

I don't know where you're getting this specific a picture.  There are factions in the Chantry that are obviously in division, but no indication that I know of that the Divine is out of the picture, that there is no such thing as a Chantry any more.  And I only understood it to be some of the templars who had split off.

[Addai]

GavrielKay wrote...
As far as whether Anders prevented bloodshed...  I don't know.  It depends on time frame and scale.  If 10,000 people die in the war, but 20,000 mages would have died in captivity over the next 1000 years of Chantry domination then Anders would figure he did the right thing. 

Mages are a minority of the population and not all of them are even in Circles.  Not sure where you get your sense of scale.

As far as Anders and some of us players are concerned...  the mages who are abducted as children and held prisoner for life are victims of the Chantry.  Those innocent victims have been piling up for 1000 years and that should matter.

And then you weigh in all the innocent people that rogue mages kill, and the dog chases the tail further...

[GavrielKay]

Addai67 wrote...

And I only understood it to be some of the templars who had split off.

I read it as nearly all the Templars had gone rogue.  I wonder if anyone has the dialogue snippet to prove it either way.

[GavrielKay]

Ok, I watched the epilogue on youtube and Varric says...

"So how is hearing all this going to help? You've already lost all the circles. In fact, haven't the Templars rebelled as well? I thought you decided to abandon the Chantry to hunt the mages."

Cassandra responds: "Not all of us desire war, Varric."

She does not deny what he says about the Templars leaving though.

[LobselVith8]

Addai67 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Except there's no mention of the Chantry having any involvement, only that the Chantry is in "pieces." You're free to speculate on what could be the case, but the only facts we have are that the Chantry lost the Circles when the mages rose up when they saw that the templars could be defied, and that the templars left the Chantry to hunt the mages.

I don't know where you're getting this specific a picture. There are factions in the Chantry that are obviously in division, but no indication that I know of that the Divine is out of the picture, that there is no such thing as a Chantry any more. And I only understood it to be some of the templars who had split off.

I'm addressing that we lack any specifics about the Chantry and the Divine. All we know is that the Circles broke free, and the templars left the Chantry to hunt the mages. According to the end of the story (from the pro-mage ending): "Word of the slaughter spread quickly. The Champion's name became a rallying cry, a reminder that the mighty templars could be defied. He had defended the mages against a brutal injustice, and many lived to tell the tale. The Circles rose up and set the world on fire." It's interesting to note that Cassandra says: "So Meredith provoked the Circle. She was to blame."

Furthermore, Varric states: "You've already lost all the Circles. In fact, haven't the templars rebelled as well? I thought you decided to abandon the Chantry to hunt the mages."

[GavrielKay]

Addai67 wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
As far as whether Anders prevented bloodshed...  I don't know.  It depends on time frame and scale.  If 10,000 people die in the war, but 20,000 mages would have died in captivity over the next 1000 years of Chantry domination then Anders would figure he did the right thing. 

Mages are a minority of the population and not all of them are even in Circles.  Not sure where you get your sense of scale.

As far as Anders and some of us players are concerned...  the mages who are abducted as children and held prisoner for life are victims of the Chantry.  Those innocent victims have been piling up for 1000 years and that should matter.

And then you weigh in all the innocent people that rogue mages kill, and the dog chases the tail further...

My sense of scale is based on knowing that there are hundreds of mages in the Kirkwall circle even before the Starkhaven mages join them.  So hundreds of mages in one circle, not too much of a stretch to think hundreds of mages in other circles.  That's one point in time.  Multiply that by 1000 years and I don't think my numbers are too crazy.

As far as rogue mages killing people - it's extremely hard to know where the blame for that lies.  Did Connor kill a huge chunk of Redcliffe because his devout mother was mortified and bought into the Chantry doctrine that mages are cursed - therefore not sending her son off to be properly trained?  Did Meredith's sister become an abomination because her family wanted to keep her with them rather than send her away permanently?  How many of the abominations running wild can be explained by the very doctrine that is meant to protect people?  If you demonize people you are likely to create demons.

And even then, we don't have concrete numbers on how many people have died to rogue mages.  Maybe it breaks even with the number of mage lives ruined by the Chantry, maybe not.  70 here and 100 there over the ages - well, obviously you wouldn't want to be one of those people, but it doesn't necessarily qualify as the "greater good" either.

[Silfren]

Rifneno wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I knew the prologue bit, but I am pretty sure that was meant to be refugees. That being said, thanks for the imagine. That just emphasizes further for me why it's clear Anders wanted the RoA declared.

And also that we never got to kill Karras if he surved in the mage ending.

Yeah, I suppose it could be refugees.  But we're in the Gallows and the game seems to be about the mage-templar conflict so I just figured it was a mage.  I don't see how it means anything about Anders though?

Would someone mind explaining to me what qualitative difference it makes if the templars were beating a refugee instead of a Circle mage?  I mean..."but I'm an pretty sure that was meant to be refugees."  But? Seriously, but?  Meaning what, it somehow doesn't count as evidence of templar abuse if it was someone other than a mage?  Seems to me that would make it even worse, as templars at least could come up with half-assed excuse to quasi-justify beating a mage.  But to just start beating a refugee for talking to a civilian? 

You know, the first time I saw the Chantry go boom, I was mortified and had to step away from the game for a while because of the emotional gutwrencher.  I was appalled by what Anders did.  But a little consideration changed my mind, and I swear, the more bits I come across that I missed on the first run, the more convinced I am that Anders is a freakin' hero. 

[Arppis]

Phoenix_Loftian wrote...

I certainly was. The Grand Cleric is the most useless person there. Not only did she not watch her lunatic fringe groups carefully, she didn't try to take a stand for anything. You could say it was due to her religious beliefs but if that were true she would've been more firm in remaining neutral to the politics around Kirkwall.

What does she do? Absolutely nothing. All she ever offered anyone were a bunch of empty anaologies about the Maker.

Maybe some of you might disagree, but I think even a religion needs to take a stand in conflicts like that. The Chantry was just hypocritically ignoring atrocities and turning about face to their own involvement in some instances. The Grand Cleric didn't bother doing a thing. She just strikes me as irresponsible and two-faced behind that kind smile.

She's a coward and I'm glad Anders was able to make use of her. After all, in politics, if you're not going to get more power then you can sure as hell bet that someone else will. It's partly because the Chantry didn't take a stand that the situation deteriorated as it did.

I wasn't. He was a morron. Knifed him. Was happy about my decission.

[Addai]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Furthermore, Varric states: "You've already lost all the Circles. In fact, haven't the templars rebelled as well? I thought you decided to abandon the Chantry to hunt the mages."

You can't split off something that no longer exists.  There are factions, that doesn't mean the Chantry isn't engaged in the war, too- as Anders intended.

Man, I thought these mage-templar arguments couldn't get any more meaningless.  I really wish this whole story line had been something we got in a codex after the fact.  I like the story less the more I think about it.

[Silfren]

GavrielKay wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I interpreted it simply that there were factions which had rebelled against "official" policy.  How does anyone conclude that the Chantry is not involved in the war when the Circles are all rebelling?  It would necessitate, on the Chantry's part, multiple annullments and military engagements rather than just one.  Trying to argue that Anders actually prevented bloodshed, that's just laughable.

I didn't say "not involved" but that it wouldn't have had to be an "Exalted March."  Espeically if the Templars, who would have to do the marching, were already gone rogue and hunting the mages on their own.

As far as whether Anders prevented bloodshed...  I don't know.  It depends on time frame and scale.  If 10,000 people die in the war, but 20,000 mages would have died in captivity over the next 1000 years of Chantry domination then Anders would figure he did the right thing. 

You may not agree, since the game never gives us any reliable information to make an informed opinion anyway.  But I would figure that Anders is thinking long term and thinking of the mages as victims of the Chantry.  Anders speaks in the long term about mages being one day able to marry and have families, so I feel quite justified in thinking he's counting long term for bloodshed as well.

As far as Anders and some of us players are concerned...  the mages who are abducted as children and held prisoner for life are victims of the Chantry.  Those innocent victims have been piling up for 1000 years and that should matter.

Not to mention Anders may also thinking of all the lives who were ended or destroyed up to that point by the Chantry's oppression.  It's not only about saving the lives of mages to come, but also of achieving justice for those who were never given a chance over a period of a thousand years.

[marshalleck]

I was disappointed that my Hawke couldn't set the bomb himself, and then go join the Qun.

Modifié par marshalleck, 26 mai 2011 - 08:04 .