107 réponses à ce sujet

[Sesshomaru47]

I liked siding with them even as a Mage. Cullen (who I have a secret crush on) redeems himself more so in that ending than the other. He stands up to Meredith twice in effect. Also I'm not really ok with the whole blowing up the Chantry and letting a bunch of mages run free, a contradiction I know as Mage Hawke is an Apostate. But still the First Enchanter proves my point.

[TEWR]

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Graces's whole purpose was to be a woman who makes no sense. CAN'T CHANGE THAT.

So Grace... is the living embodiment of Act III?

<vader> Noooooo! </vader>

 

 It all makes sense now! 

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Definitely would've been preferred. The Mage-Templar rebellion by Thrask still could've been thwarted if you let her go, but by something else. Templar plants or something who had been very careful and had been leaking information to Meredith. and then Samson brings Cullen along.

Thrask gets thrown out of the Templars. Hawke's influence as the Champion can either save or damn the mages.
*Sigh* What could've been.

 

That would've involved Hawke actually making a difference in the plot. 

Can't have that! 

Sadly true. Hawke was proactive in Ferelden. Then he got lazy in Kirkwall.


If they don't make him proactive in the DLC I will want to kill him. Which is sad because he did give some really funny lines that made me lol.


We could've made choices in Kirkwall that would lead to the same conclusion, but how we got there would be different. Alas.... we shall never see that.


I blame EA. And Kirkwall. Wait.... no, they're one and the same.

[LobselVith8]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

If they don't make him proactive in the DLC I will want to kill him. Which is sad because he did give some really funny lines that made me lol.

If they don't make Hawke proactive in the DLC I won't bother with it. I already have an issue with a character that I have less control over than The Warden, and he's far too reactive for my tastes to want to purchase DLC simply to endure more storyline with a protagonist who never seems to have any agency.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

We could've made choices in Kirkwall that would lead to the same conclusion, but how we got there would be different. Alas.... we shall never see that.

If choices actually mattered in this game like Laidlaw promised us, that would've been better than the linear storyline we received where even a pro-templar Hawke (who Varric makes clear is seen as a villain in their eyes and a sign of oppression) inspires the mages that "the templars can be defied," despite the fact that the mages lost.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I blame EA. And Kirkwall. Wait.... no, they're one and the same.

They're the Hellmouth?

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Sadly true. Hawke was proactive in Ferelden. Then he got lazy in Kirkwall. 


If they don't make him proactive in the DLC I will want to kill him. Which is sad because he did give some really funny lines that made me lol.


We could've made choices in Kirkwall that would lead to the same conclusion, but how we got there would be different. Alas.... we shall never see that.


I blame EA. And Kirkwall. Wait.... no, they're one and the same.

 

Fereldan is were all the awesome people are born. Even Cullen, Fereldan's craziest templar is the only sane man in Kirkwall.  

And really I wouldn't miss Hawke if he got offed off. I'd probably cheer. Lazy bastard. 

Really it's painful."I'm gonna ignore the serial killer for X years until my mom's in danger!" stupid twit. The least he could've did was give her a heads up "mom. There's this weird serial killer sending women lillies. If anyone sends you white lillies smile and nod and then run to Aveline's office." But noooooooo that's too much effort apparently. <_< 

LOL

[TEWR]

LobselVith8 wrote...


If they don't make Hawke proactive in the DLC I won't bother with it. I already have an issue with a character that I have less control over than The Warden, and he's far too reactive for my tastes to want to purchase DLC simply to endure more storyline with a protagonist who never seems to have any agency.

I wouldn't have minded a mix of being both proactive and reactive. What we got was entirely reactive. He could've been proactive in entirely reactive situations. Like in Act 2's climax. Sure he defended the city from the Qunari, but he could've gathered together Darktown citizens to form a militia. That would've been proactive and reactive.

If choices actually mattered in this game like Laidlaw promised us, that would've been better than the linear storyline we received where even a pro-templar Hawke (who Varric makes clear is seen as a villain in their eyes and a sign of oppression) inspires the mages that "the templars can be defied," despite the fact that the mages lost.

exactly.

They're the Hellmouth?

Yup. They make things worse for everyone.

[TEWR]

Ryzaki wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Sadly true. Hawke was proactive in Ferelden. Then he got lazy in Kirkwall. 


If they don't make him proactive in the DLC I will want to kill him. Which is sad because he did give some really funny lines that made me lol.


We could've made choices in Kirkwall that would lead to the same conclusion, but how we got there would be different. Alas.... we shall never see that.


I blame EA. And Kirkwall. Wait.... no, they're one and the same.

 

Fereldan is were all the awesome people are born. Even Cullen, Fereldan's craziest templar is the only sane man in Kirkwall.  

And really I wouldn't miss Hawke if he got offed off. I'd probably cheer. Lazy bastard. 

Really it's painful."I'm gonna ignore the serial killer for X years until my mom's in danger!" stupid twit. The least he could've did was give her a heads up "mom. There's this weird serial killer sending women lillies. If anyone sends you white lillies smile and nod and then run to Aveline's office." But noooooooo that's too much effort apparently. <_< 

LOL

I know I would've brought it up at dinnner. May not be good table conversation, but still....

[LobselVith8]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...


If they don't make Hawke proactive in the DLC I won't bother with it. I already have an issue with a character that I have less control over than The Warden, and he's far too reactive for my tastes to want to purchase DLC simply to endure more storyline with a protagonist who never seems to have any agency.

I wouldn't have minded a mix of being both proactive and reactive. What we got was entirely reactive. He could've been proactive in entirely reactive situations. Like in Act 2's climax. Sure he defended the city from the Qunari, but he could've gathered together Darktown citizens to form a militia. That would've been proactive and reactive.

Which makes perfect sense since the refugees are on great terms with Anders already. Not to mention the elves who Hawke (potentially) helped out in "Magistrate's Orders" by defying the Magistrate and protecting the elven children of the Alienage. Having two large populations of people as Hawke's private militia would have gone a long way towards addressing why Meredith wouldn't move against him, even as an apostate.

[TEWR]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...


If they don't make Hawke proactive in the DLC I won't bother with it. I already have an issue with a character that I have less control over than The Warden, and he's far too reactive for my tastes to want to purchase DLC simply to endure more storyline with a protagonist who never seems to have any agency.

I wouldn't have minded a mix of being both proactive and reactive. What we got was entirely reactive. He could've been proactive in entirely reactive situations. Like in Act 2's climax. Sure he defended the city from the Qunari, but he could've gathered together Darktown citizens to form a militia. That would've been proactive and reactive.

Which makes perfect sense since the refugees are on great terms with Anders already. Not to mention the elves who Hawke (potentially) helped out in "Magistrate's Orders" by defying the Magistrate and protecting the elven children of the Alienage. Having two large populations of people as Hawke's private militia would have gone a long way towards addressing why Meredith wouldn't move against him, even as an apostate.

considering Merrill has good standing with most, if not all, of the Alienage's denizens he should've formed a militia.

As well as the City Guard assisting. Where was Donnic in all of that?

[ddv.rsa]

If you're roleplaying a lawful neutral Hawke you could just follow orders. Meredith is the ruler of Kirkwall, and as the Champion of Kirkwall I suppose that makes Hawke a vassal of sorts.

You could also reasonably roleplay Hawke's developing anti mage views that make him/her act emotionally:
- Hawke might be an Andrastian, believe in the Chantry
- Hawke could be enraged by the "mage" attack
- Might be appalled at all the blood mages, starts thinking they're all evil
- Blood magic killed mother
- Bethany and Father's magic shaped Hawke's entire life, could resent that (Carver..)
- Bethany could be dead or a Warden, taking away a big reason to care about the mages
- Could conceivably start thinking magic is a curse that ruined his/her life

The above portrays an emotionally damaged Hawke who is sick of magic and has given in to the "dark side". Some could find this flawed character easier to relate to than the knight in shining armour fighting all injustice.

But what you won't find are logical, morally sound reasons to support Meredith. I think it has to be fuelled by a misguided sense of duty, self-interest, or overwhelming emotion.

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I know I would've brought it up at dinnner. May not be good table conversation, but still....

I would've brought it up the second she started talking about some suitor that she wouldn't let me see.

[TEWR]

Ryzaki wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I know I would've brought it up at dinnner. May not be good table conversation, but still....

I would've brought it up the second she started talking about some suitor that she wouldn't let me see.

Ah yes there was that. That would've been a better time to tell her. she wouldn't have to worry about losing her dinner then

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Ah yes there was that. That would've been a better time to tell her. she wouldn't have to worry about losing her dinner then

It would've.

Alas that requires Hawke having influence on the plot.

Hawke...could've done so many things...it really is a shame.

[schalafi]

What really makes it confusing is if you play Hawke as a mage. Everyone seems to ignore the fact that here's an apostate running around Kirkwall and nobody lays a hand on him/her. Weird!

[LobselVith8]

schalafi wrote...

What really makes it confusing is if you play Hawke as a mage. Everyone seems to ignore the fact that here's an apostate running around Kirkwall and nobody lays a hand on him/her. Weird!

Not even Cullen, who witnesses Hawke using magic and then tells the apostate of Malcolm Hawke: "Mages can't be treated like people, they aren't like you and me. They are weapons."

[Jaryd theBlackDragon]

LobselVith8 wrote...

bluebullets wrote...

I want to see what happens... Plus I am a templar

If you simply want to see the scenes, you can check out YouTube. If you need the example of a templar who was capable of going against the rules, look at Ser Carver or Ser Thrask. I still can't believe we lost Ser Thrask to that asinine quest.

Yeah the way Thrask died was pretty damn lame

[Captain_Obvious]

I sided with the templars; it wasn't difficult.  My first playthrough I sided with the mages, mostly for Anders' sake, even though I kept seeing these blood mages and abominations everywhere.  No matter the conflict, it always ends up with "we weren't blood mages, but you've pushed us too far so now we're blood mages".  By the end of my second playthrough, those mages had it coming.   If you think about it, the entire ending battle is against templars AND blood mages if you side with Orsino.    WTF?  I sided with you guys!  They spend the whole game crying out against blood magic, then run to it immediately, even though Hawke had their backs.  Lame-o, mages. 

[Jaryd theBlackDragon]

Blitzkrieg0811 wrote...

bluebullets wrote...

My main problem now is that I don't wanna kill anders

Why? He's not the Anders from Awakening. He's a maniacal, self-righteous terrorist now.

I sided with the mages and stabbed Anders anyway. Should've done that way back in Origins in retrospect, would have done the guy a favor... I mean, I can understand where he's coming from (being a mage guy) but it's fairly obvious he never learns from his mistakes or properly thinks his actions through, killing loads of innocents in the process (like half the population of a castle in Origins and Maker how knows how many innocents during the riots in DA2). On top of that he abused my trust which is something I'm not exactly forgiving about.
 

He's pretty good at picking the worst possible path to a solution, suggesting blood magic to fix what blood magic caused in Origins and just blowing up the entire Chantry in DA2. Maker knows what other stupidity he manages to cook up if left alive.

[TEWR]

Ryzaki wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Ah yes there was that. That would've been a better time to tell her. she wouldn't have to worry about losing her dinner then

It would've.

Alas that requires Hawke having influence on the plot.

Hawke...could've done so many things...it really is a shame.

I'm sure that if I were given a list of quests that people would've liked to see matter, I could make them matter. Or at least be likable.


I could probably even come up with a few new quests that would've helped Hawke gain influence. Or show the Mage/Templar conflict as it should've been shown (Meeting Orsino and Meredith prior to Act 2, getting a sense of everything that's happening, etc.)

[lobi]

They both suck ass. Leave Kirkwall, go nudist.

[Birdhive]

Another reason, if you have the Sebastian dlc, to side with the Templars would be to prevent the Divine from marching on Kirkwall, which had been threatened/promised by Sister Nightingale, and which the Grand Cleric herself wanted to avoid because of the likely number of high civilian casualties.

[LobselVith8]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

I sided with the templars; it wasn't difficult.  My first playthrough I sided with the mages, mostly for Anders' sake, even though I kept seeing these blood mages and abominations everywhere.  No matter the conflict, it always ends up with "we weren't blood mages, but you've pushed us too far so now we're blood mages".  By the end of my second playthrough, those mages had it coming.   If you think about it, the entire ending battle is against templars AND blood mages if you side with Orsino.    WTF?  I sided with you guys!  They spend the whole game crying out against blood magic, then run to it immediately, even though Hawke had their backs.  Lame-o, mages. 

 

The mages Ella, Tobrius, Bethany, the several Circle mages accompanying First Enchanter Orsino, and Terrie weren't blood mages. There are hundreds of enchanters, mages, and apprentices who Hawke never meets in the Gallows. Alain became a blood mage in Act III, but he was also a rape victim of templars who sided specifically with Ser Thrask to end Meredith's reign. As for the blood mages, we encounter them outside of the Circle Tower, and abominations can now be summoned (via Enemies Among Us and other quests).

Why would a mage turn to blood magic? Because templars can nullify ordinary magic, as Meredith did with the Qunari mage. Blood magic can't be nullified by templars, so blood mages stand a greater chance of surviving an attack than a Circle mage would.

I could imagine Ser Thrask going against orders and helping protect the mages, with Hawke's cohorts getting the men, women, and children out of the Gallows while Hawke and Thrask going down like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid as an army of templars surrounds them.

[Blitzkrieg0811]

bluebullets wrote...

Blitzkrieg0811 wrote...

bluebullets wrote...

My main problem now is that I don't wanna kill anders

Why? He's not the Anders from Awakening. He's a maniacal, self-righteous terrorist now.

Well he was right... After him, the mages rose up and faught, eliminating the circles

You of course realize that you don't HAVE to kill him, right? Even if you side with the Templars, Meredith lets you decide his fate.

[_Aine_]

I had the same dilemma, I just couldn't stomach siding with the templars. So, I created a character specifically to do that ( herself a templar ) and while she wanted to help her sister and the mages, in her head she sided with the templars because she thought that things were SO far gone that they needed to find ORDER first and then worry about rebuilding with some semblance of justice for mages. First they needed damage control, which in her head, the templars could do quicker.

Now, if it helps.... my templar playthrough is the only one BOTH sides ending up liking me. In all of my pro-mage playthroughs, only the mages did, obviously I guess.

I was surprised that a pro-templar playthrough could bring unity of attitudes towards the PC involvement, but it certainly did! So, not sure if that eases your mind at all, but during the playthrough, I still often helped the mages where I felt it was the best decision to do so. You don't have to be an ass to mages all along or even at the end. You just have to steel yourself and convince yourself that order first, justice second I guess. Worked for me, but it took some self pep-talking lol

[TJPags]

@ the OP - just do it.

Kirkwall is overflowiing with renegade mages, a blood mage killed your mother, that same blood mage was being helped by the First Enchanter, a renegade mage - your companion - blew up the Chantry, and the First Enchanter refused to allow the Templars to interrogate all the mages.

There's plenty of justification to be found. If you choose to do it, go ahead. If you choose not to, then don't.

And remember - while people on both sides of this issue get very intense about it, this is a game. It doesn't make you a bad person to make that choice.

[ObserverStatus]

allow me to explain. The Prophet Andraste once said "Magic must serve man, not rule over him" but what has magic done for you recently? The other day, I went shopping at the marketplace in Denerim, and they didn't have one damned enchanted item. If the mages are not working hard enough to keep the shelves lined with inexpensive enchanted items, they are neglecting their duty to serve man. They keep their magic all to themselves, save for a paltry number of enchanted items which they price gouge on. By making themselves rich, forcing the Maker's other children to pay absurd prices to share the magic, are they not ruling over us? The only way to ensure that there are enough enchanted items for all, aside from consorting with dwarven heathens, is to make them all tranquil. To do so is obviously the will of the maker. Why else would he turn un-tranquil mages into abominations while the tranquil are spared from the flame? The maker will continue to turn blasphemous un-tranquil mages into abominations until they all tranquilize themselves and enchant my damned sandals.