116 réponses à ce sujet

[Macropodmum]

Marduksdragon wrote...

Macropodmum wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Macropodmum wrote...

I would think lyrium restriction woul make Meredith more insane on its own, withdrawal and all that...

That came to my mind about 2 minutes ago. But perhaps due to the concentrated nature of the red lyrium it makes her increased insanity due to the lyrium withdrawal even worse?

Quite possibly, I would just think though that if she was suffering from lyrium withdrawal we may have seen her acting more like a junkie than someone who has a superiority complex prior to getting the idol.

We don't actually see her before she gets the idol. She might have. We only know she's been killing and beating people already from Thrask and the others if you make a visit to the Gallows and chat around once everything is finished, right before you enter the Deep Roads. The Initiates already think she's strange.

I guess so...

[Icy Magebane]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Havn't you taken part in enough discussion about the annulment, to know that a lot of us players, actually feel that the annulment of Kirkwall's circle was the best choice? Perhaps Meredith herself doesn't have much support, but her annulment does.

I have, but I still don't see it as the best option. Even if a Hawke becomes Viscount and truly thinks he can make Kirkwall better, there are a few things standing in the way of that:

1) The Templars are the real power in Kirkwall as they choose who becomes Viscount, and I doubt that Hawke could be the real power. People can certainly roleplay that option, but in-game sadly there isn't anything to support Hawke being an influential and powerful person with various connections
2) Kirkwall's Circle's story of that Annulment. It'll be kinda hard for them to explain in a lie why there's a glowing red lyrium Meredith in the courtyard of the Gallows. Not only that, but some mages had to have escaped for word of the slaughter to have spread, meaning the truth inevitably will reach their ears. This would cause even more unrest among the mages, as they would be in fear of an Annulment being called even if they themselves were innocent
3) Kirkwall's Circle wasn't beyond saving

I had a fourth reason, but I forgot what it was


and this isn't looking at it from a metagaming perspective. It's looking at it from a "Who is Hawke in the future" and "Kirkwall in the future" perspective.

See, the thing is, if Hawke is a Templar and was willing to support the Templars without question before and during the Annulment, then it makes perfect sense to put them in control.  You're looking at this with a vary narrow mindset... those are the conclusions the you drew, but they are not absolute facts.  Personally, I got tired of just arguing back and forth about this issue a long time ago, because there's never any give and take on either side (and IMO, particularly from some of the more ardent, and oftentimes rude Mage-supporters... not meaning you specifically though).  But every now and then I peek in on a topic and I just have to say something...  I mean, what's all this stuff about having to lie about the Annulment?  The Templars on the scene made a judgement call, as is their duty.  This isn't like the situation in the Ferelden Circle, where the threat was contained.  In Kirkwall, they would have needed to wait a few weeks to get word to the the Divine and get approval, or watch as the city is burned to ashes after Anders' little stunt.  I think the logical thing to do would be to respond to the threat at hand.  The Templars engaged in a lawful execution of criminals, according to the rules set forth by their order.  You don't need to agree with it, but at the very least, you should be willing to give others enough credit to draw their own conclusions and not simply dismiss them as illogical at every opportunity.  I just don't see how either side is grasping at straws... the story was constructed in a way that makes either option valid, according to the player's views.  At least, that's how I see it...

And also, I think it's a little ridiculous to assume that disrupting the Chantry's control over mages is going to automatically lead to a "better" future for Kirkwall.  This is again, a very biased viewpoint which assumes that all mages are inherently good victims and that there won't be outliers who will either want revenge or who have been waiting for this opportunity for years...  I don't mean to imply that the Right of Annulment is the "best" option, but that it is a valid option if you are willing to look at it from a more objective perspective.

Edit... mixed up those quotes... >.>

Modifié par Icy Magebane, 15 juillet 2011 - 03:05 .

[TEWR]

Icy Magebane wrote...


See, the thing is, if Hawke is a Templar and was willing to support the Templars without question before and during the Annulment, then it makes perfect sense to put them in control.  You're looking at this with a vary narrow mindset... those are the conclusions the you drew, but they are not absolute facts.  Personally, I got tired of just arguing back and forth about this issue a long time ago, because there's never any give and take on either side (and IMO, particularly from some of the more ardent, and oftentimes rude Mage-supporters... not meaning you specifically though).  But every now and then I peek in on a topic and I just have to say something...  I mean, what's all this stuff about having to lie about the Annulment?  The Templars on the scene made a judgement call, as is their duty.  This isn't like the situation in the Ferelden Circle, where the threat was contained.  In Kirkwall, they would have needed to wait a few weeks to get word to the the Divine and get approval, or watch as the city is burned to ashes after Anders' little stunt.  I think the logical thing to do would be to respond to the threat at hand.  The Templars engaged in a lawful execution of criminals, according to the rules set forth by their order.  You don't need to agree with it, but at the very least, you should be willing to give others enough credit to draw their own conclusions and not simply dismiss them as illogical at every opportunity.  I just don't see how either side is grasping at straws... the story was constructed in a way that makes either option valid, according to the player's views.  At least, that's how I see it...

And also, I think it's a little ridiculous to assume that disrupting the Chantry's control over mages is going to automatically lead to a "better" future for Kirkwall.  This is again, a very biased viewpoint which assumes that all mages are inherently good victims and that there won't be outliers who will either want revenge or who have been waiting for this opportunity for years...  I don't mean to imply that the Right of Annulment is the "best" option, but that it is a valid option if you are willing to look at it from a more objective perspective.

Edit... mixed up those quotes... >.>

The threat was right there though, sitting on a crate awaiting justice to be enacted. The entire Circle was innocent of that crime, so a judgement call didn't need to be made.

If a guy with a beard blew up a church that had orphans and priests and even some soldiers in it to prove a point, and then waited outside for justice to be taken, the people wouldn't demand the blood of every man born with a beard in a fortress for bearded people (because having a beard is a curse to these people) be spilled because of the actions of one bearded person. People are not that savage, especially when the criminal is right there.

Meredith had been itching to call for an Annulment, going so far as to ignore Elthina's "No" and appeal to the Divine. Even when it starts, she says "And so it begins" in a very sinister fashion, which to me signifies that she is glad she can finally Annul the Circle.

What was the mages' crime? Being mages? Not taking part in blowing up the Chantry? Defending themselves from unbridled and unwarranted slaughter? Orsino making one last ditch effort to have Meredith call off the Annulment, saying he would gladly help her so long as she didn't murder them for an act they had nothing to do with?

[DRTJR]

I wonder why the Divine granted the rite, then I remember she's Orlisian and it becomes clear once more. The removal of Elthina from the Equation sent Meredith into the bottom of the deep end, and Orsino was rather forgiving and lenient of maleficar.

[Icy Magebane]

@The Ethereal Writer Redux: The duty of Templars is clear and there are no exceptions. The First Enchanter himself practiced blood magic and allowed a psychopath to butcher women because he thought the "research" was interesting. The Circle had a lot of innocents inside it, but the evidence of corruption is undeniable. If the First Enchanter could be guilty of such crimes, it isn't much of a stretch to assume that there were others within the Circle who held similar beliefs and practices. There's even a quest where several Kirkwall mages have become apostates and Hawke is assigned to track them down... and guess what? They're all blood mages. You don't just learn that overnight (unless you are the PC of course... lol). In this instance, the Right of Annulment is enacted, whether that's fair to the innocent bystanders or not. That is the law.

I am going to go ahead and agree with you on one thing: Meredith was out of control and clearly unstable, whether that's the fault of the Idol or not. But the law is absolute and must be followed, regardless of whatever flaws the Knight Commander may have had. I'm not the one who decided that there can't be any exceptions... I mean Gregor was about to kill his friend in DA:O over this, and he had even less hard evidence that the Fereldan Circle was lost. I doubt many of us would be willing to do the same. All I'm really saying is that within the context of the game, Annulment was not only justified, but necessary.

Of course, if you do not agree with the Templars in the first place, that's completely different... But from their perspective, they did nothing wrong. Maybe the laws shouldn't be that rigid in the first place, but I'm not the one who wrote them.

I think a lot of the confusion really comes from whether or not the numerous abominations and blood mages we see throughout the game are enough proof that the Kirkwall Circle is beyond repair... well, that and the fact that in today's world, killing innocents is morally reprehensible (unless of course, you support the Mages and the bystanders are priests, Andrastians, and random orphans... then it's okay... ).

I don't know... if I seem like I'm going back and forth here, it's just because I see that both sides have valid viewpoints. But I can understand that the Templar perspective is too harsh by today's standards, and that probably rubs a lot of people the wrong way. The only reason I tend to always argue in favor of the Templars is because pro-Mage viewpoints tend to be too idealistic and do not address the realities of unsanctioned mages who are human and have the same flaws as everyone else. They are prone to good and evil like any other person, so assuming that giving these individuals freedom without any oversight seems reckless.

Yeah, this is getting kind of long-winded so... heh...

[TEWR]

Icy Magebane wrote...

@The Ethereal Writer Redux: The duty of Templars is clear and there are no exceptions. The First Enchanter himself practiced blood magic and allowed a psychopath to butcher women because he thought the "research" was interesting. The Circle had a lot of innocents inside it, but the evidence of corruption is undeniable. If the First Enchanter could be guilty of such crimes, it isn't much of a stretch to assume that there were others within the Circle who held similar beliefs and practices. There's even a quest where several Kirkwall mages have become apostates and Hawke is assigned to track them down... and guess what? They're all blood mages. You don't just learn that overnight (unless you are the PC of course... lol). In this instance, the Right of Annulment is enacted, whether that's fair to the innocent bystanders or not. That is the law.

Except the Templars don't know for a fact that Orsino is a blood mage (and I got the impression he didn't actually practice it). I made up two explanations for Orsino that would've been nice if implemented, or in the case of the second one is an explanation I hope to see:

Basically my explanation deals with Orsino having an eidetic memory. He had been in contact with Quentin, but Quentin's reports were nothing too disturbing at first. They were thoroughly detailed and delivered to Orsino, from which point he would read them. Then, when Quentin told him about the Harvester he said "WTF" and after he was done reading it he put it down. But he'd keep going back to reading it just to make sure he wasn't imagining this gruesome report. Then, when The Last Straw comes around, he remembers the ritual down to every detail. Before that point, he wasn't a practicing blood mage, but he studied blood magic. Here, it explains how he could remember such a complex ritual.

Or Varric was embellishing. And God do I hope he was embellishing on Orsino going Harvestino

Anyway, back on topic. The Templars also don't know about Orsino's connection to Quentin, who was an apostate. And what quest does Hawke learn about Kirkwall apostates? The one with Huon, Evelina, and Emile?

Huon was a blood mage who more than likely went insane from Kirkwall's conditions and because he wasn't allowed to see his wife Nyssa (which makes me wonder how Bethany is able to see her family but he isn't. Must be racism against elves).

Evelina escaped and went back to live with her children. When the Templars came, she defended herself and her children from them, and I got the impression that at that point she had become an abomination. However, there is nothing to indicate that she was a blood mage.

Emile lied about being a blood mage because he wanted to have sex. Emile's just a pathetic stupid kid.

I am going to go ahead and agree with you on one thing: Meredith was out of control and clearly unstable, whether that's the fault of the Idol or not. But the law is absolute and must be followed, regardless of whatever flaws the Knight Commander may have had. I'm not the one who decided that there can't be any exceptions... I mean Gregor was about to kill his friend in DA:O over this, and he had even less hard evidence that the Fereldan Circle was lost. I doubt many of us would be willing to do the same. All I'm really saying is that within the context of the game, Annulment was not only justified, but necessary.

Gregoir had plenty of evidence to consider the RoA, as Abominations and maleficar were stalking the halls and his men could plainly see it. His Annulment is justified in that scenario more than Meredith's.

However I also see his as unnecessary due to Wynne's barrier which kept most of the Abominations and demons from escaping. I think that's the sole reason Gregoir and his remaining forces were alive.

Of course, if you do not agree with the Templars in the first place, that's completely different... But from their perspective, they did nothing wrong. Maybe the laws shouldn't be that rigid in the first place, but I'm not the one who wrote them.

I think a lot of the confusion really comes from whether or not the numerous abominations and blood mages we see throughout the game are enough proof that the Kirkwall Circle is beyond repair... well, that and the fact that in today's world, killing innocents is morally reprehensible (unless of course, you support the Mages and the bystanders are priests, Andrastians, and random orphans... then it's okay... ).

One of the main problems is how Bioware attempted to handle the Mage-Templar situation. Instead of it being grey like they wanted, it's entirely black and white when you don't roleplay what your Hawke would do afterwards. It should've been a question of Freedom vs. Security, but they handled it so poorly that it's Good vs. Evil.

I don't know... if I seem like I'm going back and forth here, it's just because I see that both sides have valid viewpoints. But I can understand that the Templar perspective is too harsh by today's standards, and that probably rubs a lot of people the wrong way. The only reason I tend to always argue in favor of the Templars is because pro-Mage viewpoints tend to be too idealistic and do not address the realities of unsanctioned mages who are human and have the same flaws as everyone else. They are prone to good and evil like any other person, so assuming that giving these individuals freedom without any oversight seems reckless.

Yeah, this is getting kind of long-winded so... heh...

Idealism is good, but it does come with costs. But most of the pro-mage people are arguing for theoretical ways the mages could have better lives. However I have never once seen a pro-mage person argue for no oversight whatsoever.

most of the ones I post with on these forums agree (as do I) that the Templars are necessary.

A short version of an idea I made a while back is that the Circle should be a Boarding School for mages like it sort of is now, and when they pass their Harrowing (which I think is incredibly flawed in how they currently handle it) they can go and live in cities and villages that have Templars stationed there. They have to check in regularly with the Templars (if they're Andrastians, than at the Chantry for mass would work), but can have normal lives. Wives, children, etc.

And those children can go to the Boarding School or have their parents train them. Also, the Templars would keep phylacteries.

That's a short version of the idea I made, so whatever kinks there are in there are due to how brief a summary it is.

[Icy Magebane]

@The Ethereal Writer Redux: Actually I was referring to a quest that you might only get if you support Meredith in Act 3... it's basically just going around the city and finding "Blood Mage dens"... you kill some blood mages, read some notes on the ground that lead you to the next location and learn some info about their plans (how they escaped the Circle, things related to the mage underground, etc)... I could try to look this up but I really have no idea what the quest is called...

As for the quest you are referring to, this is really just an example of how some people believe that being victimized is an excuse to sell your soul to a demon and give up your humanity. I don't think it's at all justified to allow yourself to become an abomination simply because you don't think the Templars are treating you fairly. Huon is too far beyond redemption for me to even touch... regardless of why he turned out that way, he kills his wife for no apparent reason (and of course, you cannot prevent it even though you're standing a few feet away). Evelina... well, like I said, oppressed or not, letting a demon take over your mind isn't going to solve anything... and that goofy Emile... lol... yeah I just laugh and punch him in the face. I wouldn't kill him or anything, since he isn't actually dangerous, but rules are rules.

[Edit: Actually, I need to clarify something... aggressiveness and unlawful behavior ARE potential responses to victimization, however, I do not feel as though this excuses the person in question.  So while Huon's behavior was indeed the result of the Templars who mistreated him, I don't think that he was right to take the actions he did.  Being victimized does not give you a free pass when you then commit crimes which harm others.]

Regarding Ferelden's Circle, I'm just saying that Gregor wasn't trying very hard if 2 rookie wardens, and unwilling apostate, and an old woman could do the job his men were afraid to even attempt. He had already concluded the Circle was lost and it really wasn't that complicated for 4 people to set things right. I mean, keep in mind that Warden's aren't super-heroes... all the ritual does is let them sense darkspawn and guarantee an early death. I actually annulled that Circle on a playthrough once and it felt like I'd failed the quest... lol... it's like you really have to go out of your way to avoid saving them, because it's pretty straightforward. Didn't even finish that run...

I agree that the Mage vs. Templar conflict could have been presented better... I can't really explain why it's like this, but I guess it goes back to how rigid the systems of thinking are in Thedas. The Chantry's control is almost impossible to oppose, and most of the commoners don't seem to like being anywhere near mages. I don't know...

I think we've had some rather different experiences on this board because I have heard a LOT of extremist talk here and it's rare that anyone acknowledges that complete freedom could potentially harm Thedas as a whole. Most seem to see Templars and the Chantry as simple villains, and I cannot tell you how much idealistic rubbish I've heard that presents all kinds of crazy utopian scenarios if only the evil Templars were destroyed once and for all.

And finally, I like both of your ideas, the one regarding Orsino as well as the boarding school idea... The Orsino idea would at least give some kind of depth to his character rather than make him... well IMO he's unforgivably evil... I mean, Hawke's mom was a victim in that little scheme. He even taunts you about it if you don't side with him! So it's like, if you side with the mages, his character and motives aren't even the same as if you sided with the Templars... I find that very odd, and most likely a result of the poor execution you mentioned. But anyway I'm getting way off track... I think if there were any way to just calm down both sides and actually take a truly diplomatic approach, the boarding school and "release" program would be an ideal compromise... unfortunately, there are just too many absolutes in this game, and third, fourth, and fifth options are never presented to the player. It's all too simplistic IMO.

Modifié par Icy Magebane, 15 juillet 2011 - 05:02 .

[TEWR]

Icy Magebane wrote...

@The Ethereal Writer Redux: Actually I was referring to a quest that you might only get if you support Meredith in Act 3... it's basically just going around the city and finding "Blood Mage dens"... you kill some blood mages, read some notes on the ground that lead you to the next location and learn some info about their plans (how they escaped the Circle, things related to the mage underground, etc)... I could try to look this up but I really have no idea what the quest is called...

Ah I remember reading some things about that. I'll have to do that on my pro-templar at Act 3's start turned pro-mage after Anders' spectacle Hawke.

As for the quest you are referring to, this is really just an example of how some people believe that being victimized is an excuse to sell your soul to a demon and give up your humanity. I don't think it's at all justified to allow yourself to become an abomination simply because you don't think the Templars are treating you fairly. Huon is too far beyond redemption for me to even touch... regardless of why he turned out that way, he kills his wife for no apparent reason (and of course, you cannot prevent it even though you're standing a few feet away). Evelina... well, like I said, oppressed or not, letting a demon take over your mind isn't going to solve anything... and that goofy Emile... lol... yeah I just laugh and punch him in the face. I wouldn't kill him or anything, since he isn't actually dangerous, but rules are rules.

I'm not saying it's okay for Huon to go bat**** insane and kill his wife (what's worse is that Hawke can say "Do you want me to protect you?" to Nyssa, and she still dies. Useless....), but given what we learn about Kirkwall's Circle it's not like he went insane for no reason like Orsino did. He was driven to that point. While not okay, it's certainly understandable. Plus from what I saw he was just an insane mage who used blood magic, and he didn't sell his soul to a demon.

We still don't know if blood magic actually requires making a deal with a demon all the time or if you can learn it from detailed books, but considering Dragons use blood magic (see The Silverite Mine's Dragon thralls) I think you could learn from a dragon. And considering becoming a Reaver requires blood magic consisting of dragon's blood, I'd say it's really likely.

Of course, I'm not saying Huon learned from a dragon. But that would be funny sort of.

[Edit: Actually, I need to clarify something... aggressiveness and unlawful behavior ARE potential responses to victimization, however, I do not feel as though this excuses the person in question.  So while Huon's behavior was indeed the result of the Templars who mistreated him, I don't think that he was right to take the actions he did.  Being victimized does not give you a free pass when you then commit crimes which harm others.]

I agree on that. If he had just used blood magic to free himself and escape with Nyssa, I would've been okay with him.

Regarding Ferelden's Circle, I'm just saying that Gregor wasn't trying very hard if 2 rookie wardens, and unwilling apostate, and an old woman could do the job his men were afraid to even attempt. He had already concluded the Circle was lost and it really wasn't that complicated for 4 people to set things right. I mean, keep in mind that Warden's aren't super-heroes... all the ritual does is let them sense darkspawn and guarantee an early death. I actually annulled that Circle on a playthrough once and it felt like I'd failed the quest... lol... it's like you really have to go out of your way to avoid saving them, because it's pretty straightforward. Didn't even finish that run...

The Plot Dictates!

Or the Disciple version

The Plot Demands It!


It's also due to how bad Abomination AI is. Seriously, drunken bar brawlers?

I agree that the Mage vs. Templar conflict could have been presented better... I can't really explain why it's like this, but I guess it goes back to how rigid the systems of thinking are in Thedas. The Chantry's control is almost impossible to oppose, and most of the commoners don't seem to like being anywhere near mages. I don't know...

I can explain it. EA. EA is the reason why the Mage-Templar conflict was handled so poorly.

I think we've had some rather different experiences on this board because I have heard a LOT of extremist talk here and it's rare that anyone acknowledges that complete freedom could potentially harm Thedas as a whole. Most seem to see Templars and the Chantry as simple villains, and I cannot tell you how much idealistic rubbish I've heard that presents all kinds of crazy utopian scenarios if only the evil Templars were destroyed once and for all.

Damn, I mean I admit mages are dangerous and there needs to be a safeguard against them, but people arguing for complete freedom with no oversight is indeed a utopian scenario.


I mean, if Xanthos Aeducan could become King of Orzammar, he'd establish a Circle due to Dagna's book and train an order of Dwarven Templars in case of Abominations or mages who committed grievous crimes (sacrificing others). Combining dwarven resistance to magic with a Templar's abilities would be a good force.


I wonder if Darkspawn blood would work for blood mage sacrifices? Hmmm....

And finally, I like both of your ideas, the one regarding Orsino as well as the boarding school idea... The Orsino idea would at least give some kind of depth to his character rather than make him... well IMO he's unforgivably evil... I mean, Hawke's mom was a victim in that little scheme. He even taunts you about it if you don't side with him! So it's like, if you side with the mages, his character and motives aren't even the same as if you sided with the Templars... I find that very odd, and most likely a result of the poor execution you mentioned. But anyway I'm getting way off track... I think if there were any way to just calm down both sides and actually take a truly diplomatic approach, the boarding school and "release" program would be an ideal compromise... unfortunately, there are just too many absolutes in this game, and third, fourth, and fifth options are never presented to the player. It's all too simplistic IMO.

Personally I want Orsino's death for pro-mage people to be retconned due to Varric embellishing, but I definitely want to see him have an eidetic memory.

[Icy Magebane]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

It's also due to how bad Abomination AI is. Seriously, drunken bar brawlers?

ROFL... nice...

Well that's not bad at all, looks like we are kind of on the same page on a lot of this.  Maybe a few details here and there, and some differences regarding methodology, but we both seem to want a better world.  I mean hell, the main reason I always side with the Templars is because the other option just seems too risky.  And tbh, I didn't expect all of Thedas to rebel over this...  but I guess that's just how it had to be in order to build the framework for DA3... fewer options means less problems with imported data.  Oh well, maybe the ending to this game wasn't perfect, but perhaps in a sequel we'll get a chance to help Thedas in a more concrete way.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Personally I want
Orsino's death for pro-mage people to be retconned due to Varric
embellishing, but I definitely want to see him have an eidetic memory.

Hm... I tend to see fiction as histories that should not be altered for any reason.  Personally I just can't support retcons in any way... I've seen it happen too often and I think it compromises the integrity of the original work to say that what was written can be altered at any time.  But that's just my opinion... it's not like I can prevent retcons, so it's no big deal if they do it... lol...

[Sons of Horus]

The Ethereal Writer Redux do you think Orsino taught Huon blood magic ? It may explain how their was a huge influx of bloodmages within kirkwall.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Isn't the situation already cloudy enough? What you are suggesting would make Meredith the clear villain, instead of actually having some supporters (amongst the players). You are suggesting to let the lyrium idol show a clear corruption of Meredith, which would make it hard to make any sort of rational argument for supporting Meredith's annulment.
As it is now, we aren't sure wether or not the idol had any kind of influence on her before the last quest, and even then if it had, we are unsure of how much of an influence it had. This makes for a much more cloudy situation, which serves to make the whole situation more grey.

Was there ever a rational argument for supporting Meredith? The situation isn't grey. It's black and white.


Personally, Meredith's own paranoia and zealotry would've worked better imo. This is just if the idol had to be used with Meredith. I'd definitely keep it in Act 1 and Act 2 though with Bartrand, maybe even having Bartrand still having it in his mansion. Of course, that would mean the entire plot Bioware was aiming for with DA2 would need to be rewritten. And it does. It needs to be rewritten so badly it's not even funny.

Havn't you taken part in enough discussion about the annulment, to know that a lot of us players, actually feel that the annulment of Kirkwall's circle was the best choice? Perhaps Meredith herself doesn't have much support, but her annulment does.

I have, but I still don't see it as the best option. Even if a Hawke becomes Viscount and truly thinks he can make Kirkwall better, there are a few things standing in the way of that:

1) The Templars are the real power in Kirkwall as they choose who becomes Viscount, and I doubt that Hawke could be the real power. People can certainly roleplay that option, but in-game sadly there isn't anything to support Hawke being an influential and powerful person with various connections
2) Kirkwall's Circle's story of that Annulment. It'll be kinda hard for them to explain in a lie why there's a glowing red lyrium Meredith in the courtyard of the Gallows. Not only that, but some mages had to have escaped for word of the slaughter to have spread, meaning the truth inevitably will reach their ears. This would cause even more unrest among the mages, as they would be in fear of an Annulment being called even if they themselves were innocent
3) Kirkwall's Circle wasn't beyond saving

I had a fourth reason, but I forgot what it was


and this isn't looking at it from a metagaming perspective. It's looking at it from a "Who is Hawke in the future" and "Kirkwall in the future" perspective.

1) Not everyone wants to be an influential Viscount, some just want a title, others want to empower the Templars even further. Also, chances are that Cullen will be the appointed Knight-Commander after Meredith and he has shown a bigger commitment to the actual purpose of the Templars, and has much less paranoia about mages, so chances are the situation in Kirkwall will improve.

2) They could remove the statue... And they wouldn't have to lie about anything because:

3) Yes it was.

See? There are enough different opinions. That you don't see them, just speaks more of you and your commitment to your own ideals, than it does of the writing.

[Fidget6]

Well, not necessarilly completely cut, but I really wish everything between Lothering and The Deep Roads would have been handled differently. The game doesn't really get fun until the Deep Roads, up until that point you're mainly doing a bunch of tedious, mostly boring quests for coin that don't really further the main plot at all. Having to wait until 1/3rd of the game is over to actually feel like I'm playing rather than working really blows.

Also, I REALLY wish you could have saved Leandra. It just felt like they went way overboard, you lose both of your siblings (the second could possibly have died as well) and then your mother dies too? I'm all for important characters dying suddenemotional deaths for dramatic effect, but it just was like, "Okay enough." Also, the whole mansion felt even more empty and awkward afterwards. Like you had this huge home base and nothing to do in it. 

Modifié par Fidget6, 15 juillet 2011 - 12:27 .

[TEWR]

1) Not everyone wants to be an influential Viscount, some just want a title, others want to empower the Templars even further. Also, chances are that Cullen will be the appointed Knight-Commander after Meredith and he has shown a bigger commitment to the actual purpose of the Templars, and has much less paranoia about mages, so chances are the situation in Kirkwall will improve.

2) They could remove the statue... And they wouldn't have to lie about anything because:

3) Yes it was.

See? There are enough different opinions. That you don't see them, just speaks more of you and your commitment to your own ideals, than it does of the writing.

1) That would be a poor decision imo. Templars are not meant to hold worldly power, so to increase their hold over Kirkwall is a bad idea. Even if Cullen is appointed KC, he says mages aren't people. How he treats them is unknown, but he certainly doesn't see them as people.
2) That must be why the Templar girl was hesitant to touch it. I got the impression it was fused into the ground. Meredith became essentially red lyrium, and contact with Red Lyrium is deadly to even Templars and Dwarves





You can see the red lyrium coursing through what's left of her body. Even the wiki says that she's turned into a lyrium statue:

As she refused to admit defeat, her sword then shatters and Meredith withers and is petrified in lyrium


3.) No it wasn't. Orsino makes one last attempt at saving the Circle, which Meredith quickly shoots down because "the people will demand blood". Blood that would've been enough if she had done something about Anders, the real culprit. Orsino would've gladly helped her find blood mages, and from what we learn about him I believe he would've given himself up if he was indeed a practicing blood mage prior to The Last Straw (as we truly don't really know). He values his charges more than himself, so I think he would give himself up.
 
Meredith and her heavyhanded tactics are the reason why the mages not only rebelled, but continuously escaped. Had a moderate like Gregoir been in charge, things wouldn't have gotten that bad.

[beckaliz]

RE: Flemeth and the cameos
--I think the point of this is to make sure the games are linked together and to give hints about coincidences of which we do not yet have knowledge. Possibly also give Hawke a chance to meet them and know them. In DA3, they will then not have to take the time to include those introductions.
--And Flemeth, well, she DOES see something in Hawke. Hawke is doomed to be caught up in events but that in itself is almost prophecy. From what Sandal says in Act 3 if you click on him enough, prophecy is something that has a place in Thedas. From what we know of Legacy, also, Hawke is FOR SURE special beyond the coincidences that led to him/her ending up in Kirkwall. I think she fulfills a purpose beyond just a taxi ride to Gwaren. She's introduced to Hawke as much as Hawke is introduced to her.

RE: Anders
--This is what I consider to be good storytelling. His is a tragic tale, plain and simple. From DAA to his part in DA2 you see the entire arc of his decline. DAA gives the framework for why he does what he does with Justice and you have a better idea of who Anders is and why he would possibly do something so crazy. I really LIKE seeing his decline. It's tragic and full of angst and woe and delightfully depressing. If it wasn't somebody we knew already it would be just some psychopath we meet randomly who bonded with a spirit. YES, they could have had some other mage fulfill the same role, but it was obviously planned for him from the start. Just listen to his and Nathaniel's convos with Justice in DAA! It's so obvious. You have to see that to understand what would lead a good man to deciding that bonding with a spirit might remotely be a good idea. Why can't there be character development, even if it's a downward spiral? Why go through the trouble of giving him such a HORRIBLY depressing past, witnessing abuses, being locked in solitary confinement for a year, escaping over and over to get dragged back every time. His "happy-go-lucky" exterior was just an exterior, probably close to crumbling as it was, and something bad was bound to happen to him anyway. He even said that the Templars would probably label him a maleficar because of his last escape. In which case he would have gotten pretty desperate himself if they found him again.

RE: Lyrium idol
--Meredith's decline into insanity could have been shown better, but then it would have affected the player's choice at the end too much. Also, she needed to be turned into as much of a monster as Orsino becomes. It is just a little deus ex machina but it does serve a purpose.

RE: Outside city
--I just flat out disagree, but it's a matter of taste I suppose so I'm not going to write any arguments. Except to say that I like the context it puts the city in.

RE: Random item quests
--Yeah they're dumb.


Here's something that I do think was useless. I was thinking about this yesterday. The quest for the Magistrate about Kelder was useless. Or, if not useless, then what point is there in having a Magistrate involved? And he says that Hawke should get out of town for pissing him off, if you kill the guy.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
3.) No it wasn't. Orsino makes one last attempt at saving the Circle, which Meredith quickly shoots down because "the people will demand blood". Blood that would've been enough if she had done something about Anders, the real culprit. Orsino would've gladly helped her find blood mages, and from what we learn about him I believe he would've given himself up if he was indeed a practicing blood mage prior to The Last Straw (as we truly don't really know). He values his charges more than himself, so I think he would give himself up.

Meredith and her heavyhanded tactics are the reason why the mages not only rebelled, but continuously escaped. Had a moderate like Gregoir been in charge, things wouldn't have gotten that bad.

This. I've even said as much about Anders, that she could have made an example of HIM. Just shows how psycho she is and how determined she is to massacre the mages anyway. But my opinion on that has nothing to do with whether the idol should have been included or not.
 

Modifié par beckaliz, 15 juillet 2011 - 04:23 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

What makes you think she didn't want to make an example of Anders? In one case, she never gets the chance, since you and the mage rebels prevent her. In another case she lets you decide his fate. I think it is safe to assume that she assumes, that since you just sided with the Templars, that you wouldn't show mercy on Anders.

[beckaliz]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

What makes you think she didn't want to make an example of Anders? In one case, she never gets the chance, since you and the mage rebels prevent her. In another case she lets you decide his fate. I think it is safe to assume that she assumes, that since you just sided with the Templars, that you wouldn't show mercy on Anders.

I meant she could have made an example of just him to satisfy the people wanting blood, rather than the whole Circle since he's not even a part of it. But it's off topic I guess.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The rioting began almost immediately in Kirkwall, Anders' execution would have achieved nothing.

[LobselVith8]

Sons of Horus wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux do you think Orsino taught Huon blood magic ? It may explain how their was a huge influx of bloodmages within kirkwall.

There's probably more than a few blood mages because templars can nullify ordinary magic, and in an enviornment where templars like Ser Alrik and Ser Kerras are raping mages, I'm assuming that some would turn to learning blood magic to escape the Kirkwall Circle and maintain their freedom.

[DRTJR]

Considering there are basicly three types of Blood mages those who want Freedom, Knowledge, or Power. Orsino and Alain are of the first, Jowan and Merrill are of the second, and Huon and Grace are of the third.

[maxernst]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

What makes you think she didn't want to make an example of Anders? In one case, she never gets the chance, since you and the mage rebels prevent her. In another case she lets you decide his fate. I think it is safe to assume that she assumes, that since you just sided with the Templars, that you wouldn't show mercy on Anders.

But I don't do anything of the kind.  He's standing right there, but the game never gives me the option to say:  "There is your culprit right there.  Take him and do what you will, but leave the innocent mages alone!"  She has a perfect opportunity to grab Anders before the mages rebel.  My Hawke had no interest in protecting Anders whatsoever--he'd hardly seen the man in years.  I don't imagine Orsino would have cared much either.

[EmperorSahlertz]

maxernst wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

What makes you think she didn't want to make an example of Anders? In one case, she never gets the chance, since you and the mage rebels prevent her. In another case she lets you decide his fate. I think it is safe to assume that she assumes, that since you just sided with the Templars, that you wouldn't show mercy on Anders.

But I don't do anything of the kind.  He's standing right there, but the game never gives me the option to say:  "There is your culprit right there.  Take him and do what you will, but leave the innocent mages alone!"  She has a perfect opportunity to grab Anders before the mages rebel.  My Hawke had no interest in protecting Anders whatsoever--he'd hardly seen the man in years.  I don't imagine Orsino would have cared much either.

You have amble oppertunity to tell her to leave the mages alone, she doesn't listen though. And as I mentioned, I doubt the execution of Anders would have achieved anything.

[maxernst]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

maxernst wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

What makes you think she didn't want to make an example of Anders? In one case, she never gets the chance, since you and the mage rebels prevent her. In another case she lets you decide his fate. I think it is safe to assume that she assumes, that since you just sided with the Templars, that you wouldn't show mercy on Anders.

But I don't do anything of the kind.  He's standing right there, but the game never gives me the option to say:  "There is your culprit right there.  Take him and do what you will, but leave the innocent mages alone!"  She has a perfect opportunity to grab Anders before the mages rebel.  My Hawke had no interest in protecting Anders whatsoever--he'd hardly seen the man in years.  I don't imagine Orsino would have cared much either.

You have amble oppertunity to tell her to leave the mages alone, she doesn't listen though. And as I mentioned, I doubt the execution of Anders would have achieved anything.

She doesn't listen because she thinks she needs blood to appease the crowd--I'm not given the opportunity to offer Anders.  Maybe she still wouldn't listen, but I might get Cullen to listen, for example.  She can't impose the rite by herself.  And even if it wouldn't quiet the rioting, I seriously doubt that the rioting in Kirkwall could do anywhere near as much damage as the mage uprising resulting from the annullment does.  Armies can handle common citizens rioting a hell of a lot more easily than demons.  There were riots in Act 2 too, and even Aveline is willing to put off dealing with them to help Isabela with her issues.  Riots don't seem to be all that uncommon or problematic in Kirkwall.

Modifié par maxernst, 16 juillet 2011 - 09:06 .

[PrinceLionheart]

Honestly, either act 2 or 3. I understand the entire purpose of Act 2 was suppose to show Hawke's rise to becoming the Champion, but it just felt disjointed with what happened in Act 3. Either focus on the conflict with the Qunari or the conflict between the Mages and Templars.

[EmperorSahlertz]

maxernst wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

maxernst wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

What makes you think she didn't want to make an example of Anders? In one case, she never gets the chance, since you and the mage rebels prevent her. In another case she lets you decide his fate. I think it is safe to assume that she assumes, that since you just sided with the Templars, that you wouldn't show mercy on Anders.

But I don't do anything of the kind.  He's standing right there, but the game never gives me the option to say:  "There is your culprit right there.  Take him and do what you will, but leave the innocent mages alone!"  She has a perfect opportunity to grab Anders before the mages rebel.  My Hawke had no interest in protecting Anders whatsoever--he'd hardly seen the man in years.  I don't imagine Orsino would have cared much either.

You have amble oppertunity to tell her to leave the mages alone, she doesn't listen though. And as I mentioned, I doubt the execution of Anders would have achieved anything.

She doesn't listen because she thinks she needs blood to appease the crowd--I'm not given the opportunity to offer Anders.  Maybe she still wouldn't listen, but I might get Cullen to listen, for example.  She can't impose the rite by herself.  And even if it wouldn't quiet the rioting, I seriously doubt that the rioting in Kirkwall could do anywhere near as much damage as the mage uprising resulting from the annullment does.  Armies can handle common citizens rioting a hell of a lot more easily than demons.  There were riots in Act 2 too, and even Aveline is willing to put off dealing with them to help Isabela with her issues.  Riots don't seem to be all that uncommon or problematic in Kirkwall.

Now you are metagaming. Meredith had no chance to forsee that the annulment would cause a rebellion, and even if she knew, we got no way of knowing wether or not the rebellion would have happened anyway.
Álso, there was no rioting as far as I recall in act 2, there was a bit civic unrest at the harbor, then after Hawke goes to deal with the Arishok, there is open warfare in the streets.

[maxernst]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

maxernst wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

maxernst wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

What makes you think she didn't want to make an example of Anders? In one case, she never gets the chance, since you and the mage rebels prevent her. In another case she lets you decide his fate. I think it is safe to assume that she assumes, that since you just sided with the Templars, that you wouldn't show mercy on Anders.

But I don't do anything of the kind.  He's standing right there, but the game never gives me the option to say:  "There is your culprit right there.  Take him and do what you will, but leave the innocent mages alone!"  She has a perfect opportunity to grab Anders before the mages rebel.  My Hawke had no interest in protecting Anders whatsoever--he'd hardly seen the man in years.  I don't imagine Orsino would have cared much either.

You have amble oppertunity to tell her to leave the mages alone, she doesn't listen though. And as I mentioned, I doubt the execution of Anders would have achieved anything.

She doesn't listen because she thinks she needs blood to appease the crowd--I'm not given the opportunity to offer Anders.  Maybe she still wouldn't listen, but I might get Cullen to listen, for example.  She can't impose the rite by herself.  And even if it wouldn't quiet the rioting, I seriously doubt that the rioting in Kirkwall could do anywhere near as much damage as the mage uprising resulting from the annullment does.  Armies can handle common citizens rioting a hell of a lot more easily than demons.  There were riots in Act 2 too, and even Aveline is willing to put off dealing with them to help Isabela with her issues.  Riots don't seem to be all that uncommon or problematic in Kirkwall.

Now you are metagaming. Meredith had no chance to forsee that the annulment would cause a rebellion, and even if she knew, we got no way of knowing wether or not the rebellion would have happened anyway.
Álso, there was no rioting as far as I recall in act 2, there was a bit civic unrest at the harbor, then after Hawke goes to deal with the Arishok, there is open warfare in the streets.

Oh, right, the idea that the mages might try to defend themselves is so far-fetched as to be unimaginable.  If the Circle is so corrupt and full of blood mages as she thinks, how could she possibly imagine they'd simply give in without a fight?