93 réponses à ce sujet

[Nerevar-as]

I´m more concerned about why the hell there was a Circle in a place they knew the Veil was so thin.

[nos_astra]

dragonflight288 wrote...
The first Right of Annulment was the result of a single abomination? I need to read up on that again.

source: The History Of The Rite of Annulment (and now you know, why so many people confuse right and rite)

In the 83rd year of the Glory Age, one of the mages of the Nevarran Circle was found practicing forbidden magic. The templars executed him swiftly, but this brewed discontent among the Nevarra Circle. The mages made several magical attacks against the templars, vengeance for the executed mage, but the knight-commander was unable to track down which were responsible.

Three months later, the mages summoned a demon and turned it loose against their templar watchers. Demons, however, are not easily controlled. After killing the first wave of templars who tried to contain it, the demon took possession of one of its summoners. The resulting abomination slaughtered Templars and mages both before
escaping into the countryside.

The grand cleric sent a legion of templars to hunt the fugitive. They killed the abomination a year later, but by that time it had slain 70 people.

Divine Galatea, responding to the catastrophe in Nevarra and hoping to prevent further incidents, granted all the Grand Clerics of the Chantry the power to purge a Circle entirely if they rule it irredeemable. This Rite of Annulment has been performed 17 times in the last 700 years.

--From Of Fires, Circles, and Templars: A History of Magic in the Chantry, by Sister Petrine, Chantry scholar.

That sounds like two things to me.

1. The Templars overreacted and didn't know how to handle the situation, seeing as it was the first.

or

2. Those templars were even worse than Meredith.

Actually, it might be once again an example of lore and gameplay segregation. According to the codex an abomination is a monstrosity, very dangerous and very hard to defeat. According to the gameplay it's an annoyance.

It would be interesting to hear which version David Gaider feels is closer to his vision of DA.

Modifié par klarabella, 04 juin 2011 - 04:21 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

A summoned annoyance in the wave load.

[Giggles_Manically]

Its also odd that a Pride Demon is supposed to be THE END OF THE WORLD type stuff.

Yet Hawke and the Warden both still put these things down.
I do remember them being tougher in Origins though.

But still even in Origins abominations were not that hard to kill.
Or most demons for that matter.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The game representation of abomination from Origins is indeed flawed (DA2 made it worse).

Abominations are supposed to represent the dangers of magic powered and unleashed by demons (Uldred would say it's mages reaching their full potential). And what do they do? They try to beat you up with their bare hands....*facepalm*.

They should have made Arcane Horrors be abominations.

[Rifneno]

I'm just hoping the "bad" pro-mage side in DA3 gets to perform a Right of Annulment in Val Royeaux's Chantry. They need to see what it's like to be on the receiving end. Total wipeout, no prisoners. If some of the sisters try to surrender, they can be just like the surrendering mages were: target practice.

[Robhuzz]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Its also odd that a Pride Demon is supposed to be THE END OF THE WORLD type stuff.

Yet Hawke and the Warden both still put these things down.
I do remember them being tougher in Origins though.

But still even in Origins abominations were not that hard to kill.
Or most demons for that matter.

Yeah I pretty much wondered about the usefullness of the templars when gregoir said his templars were prepared for 1 or 2 abominations while the warden (and companions) kills dozens with ease...

I'm just hoping the "bad" pro-mage side in DA3 gets to perform a Right of Annulment in Val Royeaux's Chantry. They need to see what it's like to be on the receiving end. Total wipeout, no prisoners. If some of the sisters try to surrender, they can be just like the surrendering mages were: target practice.

I doubt there are any pro mages in human lands (not counting tevinter) since pretty much every human is a chantry worshipper. The grand cleric only has to say: These mages are evil and pose a threat to the chantry and your very lives and... torch and pitchfork time.

Modifié par Robhuzz, 04 juin 2011 - 04:45 .

[Silfren]

Robhuzz wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Its also odd that a Pride Demon is supposed to be THE END OF THE WORLD type stuff.

Yet Hawke and the Warden both still put these things down.
I do remember them being tougher in Origins though.

But still even in Origins abominations were not that hard to kill.
Or most demons for that matter.

Yeah I pretty much wondered about the usefullness of the templars when gregoir said his templars were prepared for 1 or 2 abominations while the warden (and companions) kills dozens with ease...

I'm just hoping the "bad" pro-mage side in DA3 gets to perform a Right of Annulment in Val Royeaux's Chantry. They need to see what it's like to be on the receiving end. Total wipeout, no prisoners. If some of the sisters try to surrender, they can be just like the surrendering mages were: target practice.

I doubt there are any pro mages in human lands (not counting tevinter) since pretty much every human is a chantry worshipper. The grand cleric only has to say: These mages are evil and pose a threat to the chantry and your very lives and... torch and pitchfork time.

Except we see plenty of examples in Origins and DA2 both of people who are Andrastians without believing that mages are inherently evil. 

[Silfren]

Rifneno wrote...

I'm just hoping the "bad" pro-mage side in DA3 gets to perform a Right of Annulment in Val Royeaux's Chantry. They need to see what it's like to be on the receiving end. Total wipeout, no prisoners. If some of the sisters try to surrender, they can be just like the surrendering mages were: target practice.

I still want to know if the Rite of Tranquility can be performed on non-mages, since you don't have to be a mage to have a connection to the Fade.  I'd like to see all those pious Chantry sisters have to live with the threat of having their very self stripped away at someone else's whim.

[dragonflight288]

That sounds like Poetic Justice. Maybe even the templars or Knight-Commander constantly under threat from the seekers to be made tranquil if they become corrupt and take advantage of mages.

[TEWR]

Abominations should cast some top-tier spells that pretty much, for lack of an eloquent phrasing, end up raping you.

Instead, all Abominations are drunk and try to beat you up

From a mindless Rage Abomination I can see that.
A Hunger Abomination though should try to eat you. OM NOM NOM

Maybe Sloth abominations could cast a sleep spell on you (not one that sends you into the fade, but like the sleep spell you could cast in Origins).

Desire and Pride should use some powerful spells.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 juin 2011 - 08:50 .

[GavrielKay]

My big problem with the Right (or Rite) of Annulment is that it basically values innocent non-mage lives over innocent mage lives. It is the Chantry's clear bias that non-mages are more worthy somehow of being protected. The RoA says "we give up." It is about deciding that it's not worth sorting out any innocent mages from the guilty and just murdering all the prisoners so the wardens can start fresh.

[TJPags]

Rifneno wrote...

I'm just hoping the "bad" pro-mage side in DA3 gets to perform a Right of Annulment in Val Royeaux's Chantry. They need to see what it's like to be on the receiving end. Total wipeout, no prisoners. If some of the sisters try to surrender, they can be just like the surrendering mages were: target practice.

If that kind of thing - wiping out the Chantry, the Divine, the Chanters, etc. - makes sense in the next game, go for it.

If I find it a valid, reasonable option in light of the game, I'll take it.

I wonder, though, how many people will cry foul about it.

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

I'm just hoping the "bad" pro-mage side in DA3 gets to perform a Right of Annulment in Val Royeaux's Chantry. They need to see what it's like to be on the receiving end. Total wipeout, no prisoners. If some of the sisters try to surrender, they can be just like the surrendering mages were: target practice.

If that kind of thing - wiping out the Chantry, the Divine, the Chanters, etc. - makes sense in the next game, go for it.

If I find it a valid, reasonable option in light of the game, I'll take it.

I wonder, though, how many people will cry foul about it.

I honestly have to wonder whether the creators will actually give us distinct endings where choice actually mattered and changes the outcome for mages in dramatic ways, or if it'll be more linear storytelling where the "endings" are all virtually identical to one another. It still doesn't make any sense that a pro-templar Hawke can show the mages that the templars can be defied by supporting Meredith and the Right of Annulment.

[GavrielKay]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I honestly have to wonder whether the creators will actually give us distinct endings where choice actually mattered and changes the outcome for mages in dramatic ways, or if it'll be more linear storytelling where the "endings" are all virtually identical to one another. It still doesn't make any sense that a pro-templar Hawke can show the mages that the templars can be defied by supporting Meredith and the Right of Annulment.

We probably won't see a truly different ending until they think they've played out the series and won't make any more games.  Even DAO didn't have different endings, just different paths to get there.

The trouble is, that you can play just about any kind of Warden who wants to kill the archdemon.  Even the most vicious cutthroat villian probably wants people around to take advantage of rather than mindless darkspawn destroying everything. 

With DA2 and the mages vs. Chantry they purposely made it debateable which was the right way - and THEN had the endings lack any substantial difference.  So you sit there, debating whether to kill Anders and whether to support or defy Meredith and then end up at the same place.

That's what frustrated me - the contrived moral dilemma.  They could have gotten to an end point of circles in revolt and Templars chasing them without railroading everything in act 3.

[Rifneno]

Silfren wrote...

I still want to know if the Rite of Tranquility can be performed on non-mages, since you don't have to be a mage to have a connection to the Fade.  I'd like to see all those pious Chantry sisters have to live with the threat of having their very self stripped away at someone else's whim.

Oh good. I was wondering if anyone else had given pause to that possibility. As we know virtually nothing about the Rite of Tranquility, we certainly shouldn't rule out the possibility that it can be performed on any human or elf (or qunari, though that'd be kind of redundant) just because the Chantry only uses it on mages. I don't think they've even specifically stated that it only works on mages. I wonder how that two-faced **** Leliana would feel about finding her loved ones' souls ripped out.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Abominations should cast some top-tier spells that pretty much, for lack of an eloquent phrasing, end up raping you.

Agreed. Some seperation of gameplay and lore is inevitable and even healthy. But we've gotten to a point where lore is pretty much thrown out the window the second Hawke draws his/her weapon. Mages dominating templars with non-blood magic, abominations fight like drunkards, and my personal favorite, a pride demon used as a trash mob (that's not just MMO lingo is it?) that no one even comments on. In fact it's such a sissy that it comes along with so many shades I lost count before half of them spawned AND a powerful blood mage. Pride demons are supposed to be the most fearsome and terrifying foes short of an archdemon or possibly a high dragon. Now? There's one lying dead next to Sandal. <shakes head>

TJPags wrote...

If that kind of thing - wiping out the Chantry, the Divine, the Chanters, etc. - makes sense in the next game, go for it.

If I find it a valid, reasonable option in light of the game, I'll take it.

I wonder, though, how many people will cry foul about it.

Many people would. Which is why I very seriously doubt they'd even consider putting such an option in the game.

And yes, for those wondering I'm well aware it's an evil path. But we're supposed to get evil paths sometimes, and damn it'd be nice to take out some Chantry hate on the Chantry. Pro-templar characters get to attack mages who haven't attacked them yet, but pro-mage characters can't lay some smack down on some holier-than-thous who aren't actively trying to kill them for some reason.

LobselVith8 wrote...

I honestly have to wonder whether the creators will actually give us distinct endings where choice actually mattered and changes the outcome for mages in dramatic ways, or if it'll be more linear storytelling where the "endings" are all virtually identical to one another. It still doesn't make any sense that a pro-templar Hawke can show the mages that the templars can be defied by supporting Meredith and the Right of Annulment.

I believe so. If there's one thing Bioware can be given credit for, it's paying attention to the community's likes and dislikes. Some of the most popular mods for DAO were things like storage chests, Cailin's armor, or respec potions that they added to later DLC's. Given the enormous stink we've all made about the lack of choice and static ending in DA2, I think they'll put an effort into not doing it again.

[GavrielKay]

Nerevar-as wrote...
I´m more concerned about why the hell there was a Circle in a place they knew the Veil was so thin.

Yeah, I've wondered that myself.  My answers range from mildly cynical to really cynical

The Chantry could not care...  the Gallows is a big place in an important city.  If you're blind to the risks it has a convenience to it. 

Or they could be knowingly housing mages there to watch them go crazy and then point to the crazy mages and say "we told you so."

The latter seems to be working on a portion of the players, so I don't think it's terribly far fetched.

[TEWR]

I don't think they knew the Veil was thin. The Band of Three seem to be the only people who actually discovered how thin the Veil was aside from the ancient Tevinters.

[Crow_22]

Well, It's a type of 'act' that Templars named Annulement. Probably because the word Annulment, means to 'undo' or 'get rid of'.

To carry it out they need agreements from both the Grand Cleric Mother AND a Knight Commander, Like Meridith. If there is no Grand Cleric then the Knight-Commander cannot carry it out unless if it is for a dire needs. Like in DA2 the Grand Cleric was killed by a mage, the Knight-Commander has the right to carry out the Right of Annulment.

Any feedback/disagreements just message me!

[GavrielKay]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I don't think they knew the Veil was thin. The Band of Three seem to be the only people who actually discovered how thin the Veil was aside from the ancient Tevinters.

I doubt that's true.  The Tevinters worked hard at thinning the veil and the people in power are likely to be aware of something like that.  If Hawke can find it laying around in notes, then official docuemnts left behind should make mention of it.

[Silfren]

Crow_22 wrote...

Well, It's a type of 'act' that Templars named Annulement. Probably because the word Annulment, means to 'undo' or 'get rid of'.

To carry it out they need agreements from both the Grand Cleric Mother AND a Knight Commander, Like Meridith. If there is no Grand Cleric then the Knight-Commander cannot carry it out unless if it is for a dire needs. Like in DA2 the Grand Cleric was killed by a mage, the Knight-Commander has the right to carry out the Right of Annulment.

Any feedback/disagreements just message me!

Or we could discuss our feedback/disagreements right here in the forum, as this topic was intended for...?

It's been established that a Knight Commander can make the decision without a Grand Cleric if circumstances preclude it.  That makes sense enough, since there does need to be a contingency plan in place fo account for the absence of a Grand Cleric, or an environment that makes getting to a Grand Cleric impractical or downright impossible.  However, if there's no Grand Cleric, a Knight Commander can carry it out for any damn reason she chooses--she doesn't have to have "dire need" at all.  If the Grand Cleric is dead, it is legal for the Knight Commander to invoke the Right, period.  Whether the reasons are just or not is a separate matter.  She flat-out does have the legal authority to invoke the right if she has no Grand Cleric of whom to make the request.

I'm not arguing that it is legal for a Knight Commander to invoke the Annulment "just because" on her own authority, but stressing that it's a completely moot point.  In a situation where the Knight Commander is in a position to call for Annulment without getting a Grand Cleric's greenlight for it, the Divine won't be getting wind of the Annulment until after its been carried out, and at this point it boils down to whether she'll agree that the Knight Commander's reason for invoking the Right were justified--or even truthful at all.   The only people to counter the Knight Commander's claims would be the templars, and likely as not they aren't going to contradict their commander.

[Ambeth]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I don't think they knew the Veil was thin. The Band of Three seem to be the only people who actually discovered how thin the Veil was aside from the ancient Tevinters.

How can anyone NOT?  It housed thousands of miserable slaves for centuries, with many, MANY people dying there.

Actually, your own character can question it early on, asking why the mages were housed in the Gallows.  The answer is 'it was a big, empty building just going to waste.'  Which means either someone along the line was VERY blind to reality (when even a newcomer thinks it's a bad idea) or someone was setting the mages up to fail.

Modifié par Ambeth, 05 juin 2011 - 10:00 .

[Crow_22]

Silfren wrote...

Crow_22 wrote...

Well, It's a type of 'act' that Templars named Annulement. Probably because the word Annulment, means to 'undo' or 'get rid of'.

To carry it out they need agreements from both the Grand Cleric Mother AND a Knight Commander, Like Meridith. If there is no Grand Cleric then the Knight-Commander cannot carry it out unless if it is for a dire needs. Like in DA2 the Grand Cleric was killed by a mage, the Knight-Commander has the right to carry out the Right of Annulment.

Any feedback/disagreements just message me!

Or we could discuss our feedback/disagreements right here in the forum, as this topic was intended for...?

It's been established that a Knight Commander can make the decision without a Grand Cleric if circumstances preclude it.  That makes sense enough, since there does need to be a contingency plan in place fo account for the absence of a Grand Cleric, or an environment that makes getting to a Grand Cleric impractical or downright impossible.  However, if there's no Grand Cleric, a Knight Commander can carry it out for any damn reason she chooses--she doesn't have to have "dire need" at all.  If the Grand Cleric is dead, it is legal for the Knight Commander to invoke the Right, period.  Whether the reasons are just or not is a separate matter.  She flat-out does have the legal authority to invoke the right if she has no Grand Cleric of whom to make the request.

I'm not arguing that it is legal for a Knight Commander to invoke the Annulment "just because" on her own authority, but stressing that it's a completely moot point.  In a situation where the Knight Commander is in a position to call for Annulment without getting a Grand Cleric's greenlight for it, the Divine won't be getting wind of the Annulment until after its been carried out, and at this point it boils down to whether she'll agree that the Knight Commander's reason for invoking the Right were justified--or even truthful at all.   The only people to counter the Knight Commander's claims would be the templars, and likely as not they aren't going to contradict their commander.

Lol the reason why I don't because I don't spend my life on Forums. I'd rather to discuss them in live chat than through a fourm.

That's why I said the feedback/disagreements so I may personally talk to them without any interuptions.

NEXT time actually know why I do stuff like that.



Anyway, back to the subject. Knight-Commander wouldn't be able to act if it supercedes Chantry rule, if there is no ruler to keep someone in check then they can do w/e the heck they want. Thus why Meridith did what she did. The Knight-Commander, if grand Cleric was dead and the ruler was still alive, would probably need to contact the local ruler or council and ask them permission. Then it'd come down to the rulers decision.

Of course if the Knight-Commander was like Meridith, wouldn't matter. No, Meridith didn't have a 'dire need' because she could not prove there were abominations. Therefore! I was correct, the Grand Cleric would have to be a 'green light' for the Kinght-Commander because he/she answers TO her. And so does the First Enchanter.

[Silfren]

Ambeth wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I don't think they knew the Veil was thin. The Band of Three seem to be the only people who actually discovered how thin the Veil was aside from the ancient Tevinters.

How can anyone NOT?  It housed thousands of miserable slaves for centuries, with many, MANY people dying there.

Actually, your own character can question it early on, asking why the mages were housed in the Gallows.  The answer is 'it was a big, empty building just going to waste.'  Which means either someone along the line was VERY blind to reality (when even a newcomer thinks it's a bad idea) or someone was setting the mages up to fail.

If you're referring to the dialogue with the guard at the gates who is barring refugees from going in, Hawke doesn't question the wisdom of locking mages in the Gallows.  Upon learning that the mages were housed in the Gallows, she simply asks if mages were imprisoned in Kirkwall, and is told that the prison was converted into a Circle.  At no point there does she suggest that she thinks its a bad idea for there to be a Circle to be in Kirkwall.