Questa discussione ha avuto 1008 risposte

[Maria Caliban]

Dave of Canada wrote...

You can easily play a Hawke who decides that:

• (S)He has no chance to fight the Templar armies in Kirkwall with the handful of mages in the Circle, so (s)he doesn't want to place his/her life at risk for nothing.
• (S)He wants to keep the peace in the city, where supporting the mages would only lead to more fighting and such.
• (S)He truly believes the Circle is too corrupt at that point, regardless of what triggered the Right, and feels it's their duty to assist in purging the Circle.
• (S)He wants to advance themselves politically, (s)he is constantly told before hand that (s)he needs the support of the Templar to rule Kirkwall.
• ect

You don't need to be evil or emotionally messed up.

Also, a Hawke who knows that opposing the Templars would likely lead to an Exalted March on Kirkwall.

[Ryzaki]

GavrielKay wrote...
Some of those points lean towards either cowardly or greedy or gullible to my mind.  Not that Hawke can't be RPed that way just fine, but calling them not "messed up" is a matter of opinion.

And one can easily call a Hawke who sides with the mages "messed up"  that too is a matter of opinion. Many of my Hawkes who helped the mages did so to incite chaos. That's not non messed up.

And I never understand how people think "...I'm not dying for you." is cowardly. It's only cowardly to me when you placed the other person in the position to be killed.

Modificata da Ryzaki, 16 giugno 2011 - 01:03 .

[TEWR]

GavrielKay wrote...

draken-heart wrote...
thats another thing, Kirkwall was built on blood magic and slavery, what did the chantry think was going to happen?

I could be cynical and say they weren't thinking, or I could be really really cynical and say they were thinking Kirkwall mages would go bonkers and reinforce the Chantry position that mages couldn't be trusted

The latter.

[Torax]

David Gaider wrote...

Did Gaider and the other PTB intend for fans to side with the templars as Hawke in Dragon Age 2?

Those quotes were in response to a poster who was determined to paint the templars as evil oppressors-- when my position has always been there are no easy answers to this particular question. It's very easy for us comfortable western folk to take the attitude that anything which isn't democratic and fair is clearly wrong-- which is a pat answer to a complex problem, especially in a world where the situation is simply not the same as in our own.

You may believe we pushed too hard in the other direction, and that's fair, but if we had intended for there to be one solution there would be no argument about it at all, would there? What you see, after all, is there because we chose for it to be there.

I think my only true complaint is the endings are too similar. The Templars could have had more face time though. I just wish it was different than how it turns out. Especially in the mage supporting end. Since the player has the "Everything is going fine" feeling.

[sphinxess]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

draken-heart wrote...
thats another thing, Kirkwall was built on blood magic and slavery, what did the chantry think was going to happen?

I could be cynical and say they weren't thinking, or I could be really really cynical and say they were thinking Kirkwall mages would go bonkers and reinforce the Chantry position that mages couldn't be trusted

The latter.

Listening to Leliana it almost seems they were planning a annulment to get the all the circles back in line,  I mean telling the reverend mother simply to leave town, ignoring Meredith had the power of the viscount etc. Anders bomb messed up the plan cause Meredith pulled the Annulment to early -<before the circle was all bonkers>  it didn't scare the mages it made them hopping mad.

Modificata da sphinxess, 16 giugno 2011 - 01:21 .

[TEWR]

Torax wrote...

David Gaider wrote...



Did Gaider and the other PTB intend for fans to side with the templars as Hawke in Dragon Age 2?


Those quotes were in response to a poster who was determined to paint the templars as evil oppressors-- when my position has always been there are no easy answers to this particular question. It's very easy for us comfortable western folk to take the attitude that anything which isn't democratic and fair is clearly wrong-- which is a pat answer to a complex problem, especially in a world where the situation is simply not the same as in our own.

You may believe we pushed too hard in the other direction, and that's fair, but if we had intended for there to be one solution there would be no argument about it at all, would there? What you see, after all, is there because we chose for it to be there.

I think my only true complaint is the endings are too similar. The Templars could have had more face time though. I just wish it was different than how it turns out. Especially in the mage supporting end. Since the player has the "Everything is going fine" feeling.

I dislike many things about act 3 in general:

• We didn't see enough of the Gallows to convey a true Right of Annulment, when in Origins we explored all of Kinloch Hold. Short development time no doubt.
  
• Orsino turns into a Harvester in a pro-mage playthrough when it makes no sense for various reasons: He does it when you just wiped out the Templars, he does it regardless of whether or not you saved all the mages, the battle was far too easy to even convey a sense of hopelessness, etc.
  
• We don't get to see or know enough about Meredith or Orsino.
  
• Best Served Cold.
  
• Meredith's lightsaber sword sound effects

Honestly.... there are ways the Harvester battle could've been had in the pro-mage ending that would've worked. I've posted my ideas before on these forums. I just wish Orsino didn't always have to die. I liked his character.


Overall though, I still play the game and I do enjoy it. It's always fun to play, even if I dislike how Act 3 played out.


@sphinxess I wouldn't put it past the Chantry. They're afraid to lose their grip on the Templars and their dominance over the mages, so they had probably been planning it for a long time. Just so they could say "See?! This is why you can't trust mages!"


and the populus would be none the wiser to the true nature of Kirkwall.

Modificata da The Ethereal Writer Redux, 16 giugno 2011 - 01:51 .

[Augustei]

Dave of Canada wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

I want to support the Templars. I really do. But unless I'm roleplaying an evil / emotionally messed up Hawke I can't follow that order.

You can easily play a Hawke who decides that:

• (S)He has no chance to fight the Templar armies in Kirkwall with the handful of mages in the Circle, so (s)he doesn't want to place his/her life at risk for nothing.
• (S)He wants to keep the peace in the city, where supporting the mages would only lead to more fighting and such.
• (S)He truly believes the Circle is too corrupt at that point, regardless of what triggered the Right, and feels it's their duty to assist in purging the Circle.
• (S)He wants to advance themselves politically, (s)he is constantly told before hand that (s)he needs the support of the Templar to rule Kirkwall.
• ect

You don't need to be evil or emotionally messed up.

Not to mention he spent the last decade building a life in kirkwall and siding with the mages would be throwing that all away

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

Did Gaider and the other PTB intend for fans to side with the templars as Hawke in Dragon Age 2?

Those quotes were in response to a poster who was determined to paint the templars as evil oppressors-- when my position has always been there are no easy answers to this particular question. It's very easy for us comfortable western folk to take the attitude that anything which isn't democratic and fair is clearly wrong-- which is a pat answer to a complex problem, especially in a world where the situation is simply not the same as in our own.

There you go again putting down people that are raised with a Western notion of ethics, and morality.  The fact is that wrong is wrong, and punishing a group of people en masse for what they are (which IS genocide according to the UN) for something someone else did, is always wrong, and I don't care if you were raised in a Western Democracy or in the Myammar or the DPRK (the most rigid dictatorships in the world).  The point is that your problem actually ISN'T all that complex and you are resorting IMO to some cheap stunts with the storytelling and writing to make it appear to be so (such as non-representative samples of mages in the game and such as showing evil mages but only alluding to evil templars).

You may believe we pushed too hard in the other direction, and that's fair, but if we had intended for there to be one solution there would be no argument about it at all, would there? What you see, after all, is there because we chose for it to be there.

Frankly yes, because I don't think you actually recognize a really morally grey choice from one that one seems that way.

-Polaris

[GavrielKay]

David Gaider wrote...
It's very easy for us comfortable western folk to take the attitude that anything which isn't democratic and fair is clearly wrong-- which is a pat answer to a complex problem, especially in a world where the situation is simply not the same as in our own.

But we do deal with similar situations:

1) When we're being rational and clear headed, we don't call for the Middle East to be bombed until the desert is a shiny glass area because it isn't right to treat an entire group of people as if they are all as guilty as the worst elements among them

2) Likewise with Somalia and the pirates

When the danger comes from something we absolutely can't control, we just accept that there is danger and live as best we can.  There are places all around the world where folks live with tornados, volcanos, floods and freezing.  Those people make a decision to tough it out for their own reasons and just deal with casualties as they happen.  The same should be done with mages - they are a natural occurence that can cause destruction at unpredictable intervals.  The fact that it is physically possible to gather them up and lock them into a tower doesn't make it right.

[AquamanOS]

It could also be in attempt to counter DAO, which was heavily mage biased. All of the Templars are various shades of jerks, and the most prominate party member was heavily anti Templar (despite being one himself, he wasn't even a mage). Meanwhile the only evil mage is Uldred who was revealed to have been pushed to evil because of Templars. Jowan and Zatharian don't really count as Jowan was more of somebody who meant well but kept screwing up and getting in over his head, and Zatharian was arguably justfied in his werewolf curse.

And siding with the Templars is the evil or impatient option as you basically write them off without even checking to see how bad it's gotten.

[IanPolaris]

AquamanOS wrote...

It could also be in attempt to counter DAO, which was heavily mage biased. All of the Templars are various shades of jerks, and the most prominate party member was heavily anti Templar (despite being one himself, he wasn't even a mage). Meanwhile the only evil mage is Uldred who was revealed to have been pushed to evil because of Templars. Jowan and Zatharian don't really count as Jowan was more of somebody who meant well but kept screwing up and getting in over his head, and Zatharian was arguably justfied in his werewolf curse.

And siding with the Templars is the evil or impatient option as you basically write them off without even checking to see how bad it's gotten.

Knight Commander Gregoire would like to have a word with you as would pre-Tower Crisis Ser Cullen.  DAO IMHO presented the 'facts' of the game in a very fair manner I think with real people who had real flaws and real virtues on both sides,  It was the playing population as a whole that made the (IMHO obvious) conclusion.

-Polaris

[Dave of Canada]

It's the playing population until the game's against mages, gentlemen.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I don't know what their intentions were, but they succeeded in making me more or less oblivious to the entire issue,

[Dave of Canada]

Personally, I still feel the game is arguably pro-mage by virtue of the average player of seeing everything in black & white. The majority of players always fall for the "good" options presented in video games, as shown with the popularity of Paragon / Light side / ect.

This isn't saying that DA2 was black & white, otherwise we wouldn't have debates about it constantly on the boards (though some people sure love to call other people monsters!) but when presented with the mage / templar decisions... which one will the average player (who might not have played Origins) pick?

Sending people to the Circle against their will or making people lose their job are not things I'd assume the average player would do unless they are doing their "evil" playthrough, regardless of how might roleplay the decision or think about it. People in gaming are often idealistic and don't like it when it backfires, as shown with Grace going "rawr" in act 3.

When the option presents itself, what will the average person see? Will they think of the decision and every implication or will they see it as "Kill people" or "Defend people"? Most will likely fall into the blue catagory, though DA2's extreme measures (on both sides) have probably thrown more people into the Templar camp with them seeing it not as the "evil" decision.

Which I can congratulate the writing on accomplishing, creating difficult choices that are argued constantly have proven itself to be excellent writing regardless of how one might percieve it. The Collector Base, another similar choice where people argue constantly, is still being argued.

That constant reappearance of arguments proves they did right somewhere, regardless of how the game is "anti-mage". In comparison to Dragon Age: Origins, which only had debates mostly surrounding Loghain at Ostagar (which were interesting but had no player involvement) rather than every other decision in the entire game because it quickly fell into players doing the "third" option (Cure Connor and cure Werewolves) or the metagame happy ending (Bhelen).

Still loving the fact that people have different motivations for siding with different people.

Modificata da Dave of Canada, 16 giugno 2011 - 05:17 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Most debates end up being about the mage / templar issue in general (which was established by Origins), and not that one choice in Act 3, which a lot of people who do participate in the debates think is very badly written. Most base the decision in Act 3 on their perspective of the entire issue.

So I wouldn't give credit to DA2's writing for this at all.

Modificata da KnightofPhoenix, 16 giugno 2011 - 05:23 .

[Dave of Canada]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Most debates end up being about the mage / templar issue in general (which was established by Origins), and not that one choice in Act 3, which a lot of people who do participate in the debates think is very badly written. Most base the decision in Act 3 on their perspective of the entire issue.

So I wouldn't give credit to DA2's writing for this at all.

I'm complimenting the ending decision because it managed to make people consider everything they've experience up to that point and turn a few people from pro-mage into pro-templar (or atleast for that very scenario), most of the mage-templar arguments start from ending choice debates (regardless of how silly some of it is at that point). While the more drawn out arguments tend to involve everything in both games, they tend to revolve around the same few individuals.

It's actually very interesting (atleast to me) to see the perspectives when somebody briefly creates a "fresh" thread where people admit they sided with Meredith even if they were pro-mage through the entire game or how some felt uneasy with demons and abominations but still sided with mages. I'd fully expect most people to generally be accepting of "Templar = bad, Mage = good" (as it was one of the attitudes I generally saw back with Origins).

Modificata da Dave of Canada, 16 giugno 2011 - 05:47 .

[TEWR]

IanPolaris wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Did Gaider and the other PTB intend for fans to side with the templars as Hawke in Dragon Age 2?

Those quotes were in response to a poster who was determined to paint the templars as evil oppressors-- when my position has always been there are no easy answers to this particular question. It's very easy for us comfortable western folk to take the attitude that anything which isn't democratic and fair is clearly wrong-- which is a pat answer to a complex problem, especially in a world where the situation is simply not the same as in our own.

There you go again putting down people that are raised with a Western notion of ethics, and morality.  The fact is that wrong is wrong, and punishing a group of people en masse for what they are (which IS genocide according to the UN) for something someone else did, is always wrong, and I don't care if you were raised in a Western Democracy or in the Myammar or the DPRK (the most rigid dictatorships in the world).  The point is that your problem actually ISN'T all that complex and you are resorting IMO to some cheap stunts with the storytelling and writing to make it appear to be so (such as non-representative samples of mages in the game and such as showing evil mages but only alluding to evil templars).

You may believe we pushed too hard in the other direction, and that's fair, but if we had intended for there to be one solution there would be no argument about it at all, would there? What you see, after all, is there because we chose for it to be there.

Frankly yes, because I don't think you actually recognize a really morally grey choice from one that one seems that way.

-Polaris

Agreed. It's no different than slavery really. While it was acceptable back when it was in practice, that doesn't change how it was wrong to enslave Native Americans, African Americans, the people the Roman Empire enslaved, etc.


Just because a person or a group of people may not see something as wrong doesn't change that it is and forever shall be wrong. 


The Templars and Chantry as it stands (or stood as the case may be) are in fact oppressors. They give very limited freedoms to mages and won't even let them have one or two more freedoms.

A mage's freedoms are limited to:

• eating and drinking
  
• sleeping
  
• shelter
  
• education
  
• sometimes a field trip or something outside

All of which happens (or can happen regarding the last point) at a prison. Zevran's words come to mind here:

It's a cage, if a gilded cage. Pretty, yet confining.

Also, we have Chantry higher-ups that ignore a Knight Commander's usurping of the Viscount's seat, her allowing her Templars to rape and illegally Tranquil mages, etc. and then have the audacity to say "Kirkwall must not fall to magic". Leliana was sent to investigate what was happening, not make assumptions because the mages she fought were a very small fraction of a fraternity (I think that was the case anyway. Resolutionists being an offshoot and whatnot).

That's not to say that the Chantry and Templars would always be evil oppressors. We've seen examples of people who are in fact the very opposite. Thrask being the most notable, and sadly killed by Grace because she couldn't handle the fact that Decimus struck first and Hawke defended himself (which begs the question why would Decimus attack (Mage) Hawke who might be traveling with Merrill/Bethany/Anders?)


I could probably never support a Right of Annulment due to the fact that it's slaughter. I could only support it if I knew the entire Circle was lost, not just 90% of it. Or through meta-gaming knowledge where say if I don't do the RoA in maybe a scenario similar to Broken Circle, many of the mages I saved went insane or got possessed and actually brought more damage to the Circle. Even then though, it would still leave a bad taste in my mouth, but I'd do it.


Hopefully my little rant here stayed on course and didn't veer off into 5 different topics.

Modificata da The Ethereal Writer Redux, 16 giugno 2011 - 05:56 .

[Playest]

David Gaider
wrote...

You may believe we pushed too hard in the other direction, and that's fair, but
if we had intended for there to be one solution there would be no argument
about it at all, would there? What you see, after all, is there because we
chose for it to be there.

What was the choice we made exactly? 

On the one hand we can watch Anders blow up the chantry, kill Orsino, kill
Meredith and the world will be pushed to the brink of war. 

While on the other hand… we can watch Anders blow up the chantry, kill Orsino,
kill Meredith and the world will be pushed top the brink of war. 

It’s less Personal Freedom vs Public Safety as it is Coke vs Pepsi.


-edited for spacing

Modificata da Playest, 16 giugno 2011 - 06:42 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Playest wrote...

David Gaider
wrote...

You may believe we pushed too hard in the other direction, and that's fair, but
if we had intended for there to be one solution there would be no argument
about it at all, would there? What you see, after all, is there because we
chose for it to be there.

What was the choice we made exactly? 

On the one hand we can watch Anders blow up the chantry, kill Orsino, kill
Meredith and the world will be pushed to the brink of war. 

While on the other hand… we can watch Anders blow up the chantry, kill Orsino,
kill Meredith and the world will be pushed top the brink of war. 

It’s less Personal Freedom vs Public Safety as it is Coke vs Pepsi.


-edited for spacing

On one side, Hawke saves a bunch of mages, escapes with them and goes on the run.

On the other, Hawke becomes Viscount of Kirkwall, rules for a few years, then disappears.

Sounds pretty different to me.

[Dave of Canada]

Playest wrote...

What was the choice we made exactly? 

On the one hand we can watch Anders blow up the chantry, kill Orsino, kill
Meredith and the world will be pushed to the brink of war. 

While on the other hand… we can watch Anders blow up the chantry, kill Orsino,
kill Meredith and the world will be pushed top the brink of war. 

It’s less Personal Freedom vs Public Safety as it is Coke vs Pepsi.


-edited for spacing

You made a choice, consequences of said choice doesn't stop you from having made that choice. It was a choice.

[IanPolaris]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

On one side, Hawke saves a bunch of mages, escapes with them and goes on the run.

On the other, Hawke becomes Viscount of Kirkwall, rules for a few years, then disappears.

Sounds pretty different to me.

Not really.  In both bases you have a Hawke that has mysteriously dissapeared.  Even the story the Seeker Cassandra has is almost the same no matter what choices you made.  In both cases you have an open mage vs templar war, in both cases the Champion was supposed to be an important person (and wasn't). 

Choice without consequence isn't choice.  It's a lie calling itself choice when it's not.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

You made a choice, consequences of said choice doesn't stop you from having made that choice. It was a choice.

Actually it does.  If the choice you have makes absolutely no difference then it isn't a choice at all.

-Polaris

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually it does.  If the choice you have makes absolutely no difference then it isn't a choice at all.

-Polaris

It does if it establishes who your Hawke is supporting.

[ddv.rsa]

Dave of Canada wrote...
(S)He wants to keep the peace in the city, where supporting the mages would only lead to more fighting and such.

Until Meredith attacks, the city doesn't seem to be under any threat from the mages. Orsino is ready to accommodate any demands. The only threat is Anders, who Meredith ignores. If the mob had to be appeased executing a few Libertarians would do.

Dave of Canada wrote...
(S)He truly believes the Circle is too corrupt at that point, regardless of what triggered the Right, and feels it's their duty to assist in purging the Circle.

Can't trust those robes. Let's kill 'em all! Ok.. Killing a potentially troublesome individual is one thing. Exterminating a potentially troublesome POPULATION is something else entirely. Especially if your sister is among them.

Dave of Canada wrote...
(S)He wants to advance themselves politically, (s)he is constantly told before hand that (s)he needs the support of the Templar to rule Kirkwall.

How is mass murder for political gain not evil?

XxDeonxX wrote...
Not to mention he spent the last decade building a life in kirkwall and siding with the mages would be throwing that all away

I want to keep my cushy life as the Champion of Kirkwall. That's a great reason to murder my sister for something Anders did.

Ryzaki wrote...

And I never understand how people think "...I'm not dying for you." is cowardly. It's only cowardly to me when you placed the other person in the position to be killed.

It's cowardly when your sister is one of those mages.

Maria Caliban wrote...
Also, a Hawke who knows that opposing the Templars would likely lead to an Exalted March on Kirkwall.

Probably the best reason I've seen here. But would Hawke realistically think of this in the few minutes (s)he has to decide?

Bottom line: I don't like mages. I've always leaned towards the Templars. But exterminating an entire population because it's expedient is too much. Personally, I need to know that Circle Mages were involved. The evidence just isn't there. It's a shame that Hawke's choices come down to being a war criminal or pro-mage radical.

[Ryzaki]

Oh yes Bethany must always be a circle mage.

There's no way she could be dead or a warden...oh wait.  

Not to mention there's also the fact that Hawke might not give a hoot about Bethany!   

I really hate when people try to label an act as defintely anything (cowardly, heroic, whatever). Especially when they themselves don't bother doing it. In RL most people don't go running around saving people that they don't know and break the law to do so. I guess we're all cowards. 

 

Modificata da Ryzaki, 16 giugno 2011 - 07:55 .