89 réponses à ce sujet

[telephasic]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
Fenris is more Chaotic Neutral. He's more about exacting vengeance on those that made him suffer, not on righting wrongs.

I can understand your point, but he does show compassion to slaves and elves, for example. 

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
Also, while Isabela claims she's Chaotic Neutral, if she comes back at the end of Act II, she is firmly Chaotic Good. The whole reason she split with Castillon was over his slave trading, so she has some Chaotic Good beforehand as well.

Just because she does good actions occasionally doesn't make her Chaotic Good.  Remember, in the D&D system evil = being out for yourself at any cost, good = helping others whenever possible.  Neutral is a a balance between the two.  Seems to me Isabela is right in the middle. 

Zjarcal wrote...
The "stupid-stupid" comment is bad an the OP should feel bad for it.

I don't feel bad at all, although I know it came across as trolling.  Honestly, if a PC acted like Merrill in a paper and pen game, the DM would be constantly putting crises in front of the character trying to get them to be more introspective and less obsessive.  The plot basically does that, but Merrill is too thick to notice.  Hell, she only shows remorse for her actions if you achieve rivalry with her - which pretty much requires you to be a dick to her - not just shoot her down when she's acting like an idiot.  

Mash Mashington wrote...
This thread is funny. Half of DA2's charm comes from nobody being exactly good or evil. Please let's keep it this way

No, I agree with you.  It's much harder to pin alignments on DA2 characters compared to DA:O (where every character's alignment was very clear).  

DRTJR wrote...
Lawful evil and true neutral are the most morally fuzzy, The simplest definition of LE is evil with standers

No, this is all wrong.  Lawful evil is someone who is for all intents and purposes totally selfish, but works within the system and keeps their word.  Whatever else Anders is, he is selfless - no Evil character in a D&D setting would ever try to go out in a blaze of glory for the greater good. 

In general, evil is not about actions in D&D, it's about intent.  As an example, Morrigan in DA:O is pretty clearly a Chaotic Evil character - she's just not the Chaotic Stupid/Stupid Evil that most people roleplay the alignment as.  She's not sadistic or cruel, but she's selfish, cares nothing for rules, and values her own freedom but doesn't care a bit about the freedom of others who aren't strong enough to grasp what they want.  

CaptainZaysh wrote...
D&D alignments are retarded. Any system of morality that codifies blowing up a place of worship full of innocent people as an act of goodness has got some real problems. By that rationale the 9/11 hijackers were Chaotic Good.

No, it works fine actually, it's just mis-named.  Good=selfless, and evil=selfish basically.  Blowing up the Chantry is an action which gets Anders nothing in personal gain, and he probably intended to kill himself.  It's clearly a "Good" D&D  action.

DRTJR wrote...
Anders is evil, it is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. blowing up the chantry full of innocent people is an act of serious F***ing EVIL, anders is an abomination that is willing to kill indiscriminately to obtain his objective which was a WAR betwine the Circles of thedas and the Templar orders. You don't get much more evil than that.

While I understand why people complain about applying D&D alignment to a non D&D setting, you are applying KOTOR ethics to the game.  A bad action doesn't turn people to the dark side in this game either.  Stop it.  

Modifié par telephasic, 14 juillet 2011 - 02:29 .

[ipgd]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

So was everything the 9/11 hijackers did, I'm sure.  Does that mean you look at this incredibly sad photograph and think "Chaotic Good"?

You know not all terrorists are alike, right? 9/11 is not the only instance of terrorism that has ever occured in the history of the world and the people who perpetrated it are not the only kind of people that resort to terrorist acts.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Yeah, I hate when people confuse lightside/darkside with alignments in D&D. Doesn't work that way, bubs.

[DRTJR]

As a DM, and as a player the murder of innocent is EVIL no matter how you shake a stick at it.

[CaptainZaysh]

ipgd wrote...

You know not all terrorists are alike, right? 9/11 is not the only instance of terrorism that has ever occured in the history of the world and the people who perpetrated it are not the only kind of people that resort to terrorist acts.

What a spectacularly banal observation.  Did you have a point?

[CaptainZaysh]

telephasic wrote...

No, it works fine actually, it's just mis-named.  Good=selfless, and evil=selfish basically.  Blowing up the Chantry is an action which gets Anders nothing in personal gain, and he probably intended to kill himself.  It's clearly a "Good" D&D  action.

Wow.  So the Nazis were lawful good?  Timothy McVeigh was chaotic good?

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 14 juillet 2011 - 04:23 .

[DRTJR]

It's not intention but the action that makes the man, Evil is just to what levels you'll go to acomplish your goals.

[telephasic]

DRTJR wrote...
As a DM, and as a player the murder of innocent is EVIL no matter how you shake a stick at it.

You may feel that way personally, but that's just not the way that D&D works.  It's also not quite the way the real world works. 

If you want to read a RL historical character that Anders is probably based upon, look here.  Is John Brown evil?

At absolute worst, I'd say Anders is chaotic neutral.  Although he always talks about the plight of mages, a lot of it harkens back to his old selfishness and just wanting to be free.  This can be seen in his positive view of Tevinter, which seems to be a nasty country in all respects except he could live his life openly there.  That said, the "good" part of Anders is undoubtedly from Justice.  Old Anders wouldn't have tried to sacrifice himself. 

CaptainZaysh wrote...
Wow.  So the Nazis were lawful good?  Timothy McVeigh was chaotic good?

Applying D&D alignment to the RL is hard for those reasons.  I've seen George W Bush, after all, pegged as everything from Lawful Evil to Chaotic Good.  

Still, as to your question...

1.  In the D&D sense, there undoubtedly were lawful good ****s.  for example, look at John Rabe, who was certainly a LG ****.  More generally, those ****s who honestly believed what they spouted, and thought it was good for the world at large were Lawful Good in the D&D sense.  Those who used ****sm as a means to get ahead, or to manipulate people were Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil. 

(edit, how can you post ****, and I can't?  Why is it blocked anyway?)

2.  I think in the D&D sense McVeigh would be chaotic neutral.  Although he claimed to undertake his bombing for political reasons, his life shows he was deeply troubled, formed few attachments with anyone, and most of his anti-government anger was due to percieved wrongs against himself. 

Modifié par telephasic, 14 juillet 2011 - 06:50 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

telephasic wrote...

No, it works fine actually, it's just mis-named.  Good=selfless, and evil=selfish basically.  Blowing up the Chantry is an action which gets Anders nothing in personal gain, and he probably intended to kill himself.  It's clearly a "Good" D&D  action.

Wow.  So the Nazis were lawful good?  Timothy McVeigh was chaotic good?

You're looking at the wrong parallells.

Moses was chaotic good: he unleashed the angel of death on thousands or millions of innocent Egyptians, but it was OK, because it was in pursuit of freedom for his people. That's how chaotic good works.

How was what Anders did any worse than what the angel of death did? It killed infants in their sleep, Anders just killed some random people who happened to be in proximity to a dictator who was facilitating the torture of his people.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 14 juillet 2011 - 06:45 .

[DRTJR]

A dictator?... You mean the grand Cleric? she's trying to prevent a war that would turn Kirkwall into a blood bath, which with her death it did. She was concered about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. for her taking one side over the other would mean that the side she didn't chose would retaliate. She was worried about everbody from mage to fruit salesman. She is Lawful good to a T,

[CulturalGeekGirl]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

It all depends on your definition of innocent people. In my mind, Elthina was the administrator of an evil regime. It's the classic "blowing up the death star" question: is it wrong to destroy an enemy installation if most of the people working on it are technically civilians? 

Addendum: if someone who is technically in command of someone who commits atrocities fails to stop them, and in fact allows such atrocities to continue, are they culpable for said atrocities?

It was an attack on an enemy with collatoral damage, rather than an attempt to kill as many innocents as possible. There's a big difference, there.

Nahhhhh.

The Death Star was a weapon, populated entirely by uniformed soldiers.  Legitimate target, no question.

Kirkwall's Chantry was a civilian place of worship, full of civilians and religious workers.  Blowing it up to get Elthina would be just like firing a Tomahawk into the Faisal Mosque to get Mullah Omar.

It isn't, though.

The Chantry has made itself a political target by becoming a political force. They actively rule Kirkwall. They countermanded the King of Ferelden, and tried to countermand the Wardens. They have an active military. The chantry is filled almost entirely with uniformed soldiers and uniformed members of the chantry... but Elthina herself is a cleric, and she had administrative control over the military. So it's like blowing up a military installation with a bunch of associated civilian clerks who work on military matters.

The Chantry getting as involved in politics as it is MAKES it a military target. If they didn't have the largest standing army in Thedas (other than possibly the Qunari) I'd allow you to say that they're a civilian target. But the organization that controls the largest army in your world can't just claim to be populated entirely by civilians. That dog won't hunt.

It would be like if [INSERT DICTATOR] ruled from inside a church, constantly surrounding himself with civilians as a human shield.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

DRTJR wrote...

A dictator?... You mean the grand Cleric? she's trying to prevent a war that would turn Kirkwall into a blood bath, which with her death it did. She was concered about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. for her taking one side over the other would mean that the side she didn't chose would retaliate. She was worried about everbody from mage to fruit salesman. She is Lawful good to a T,

I disagree. There are a thousand things she could have done that would have helped things without appearing to take sides.

She could have replaced both the Knight Commander and the First Enchanter simultaneously, thus not appearing to take sides, because she would be punishing both sides equally.

I don't see how making Meredith and Orisino both step down in Act 2 and appointing Cullen and Bethany (or someone else) as the new Knight Commander and First Enchanter (for instance) would have caused a war to start... other than the fact that Meredith might have been so insane she would have started flat out murdering people as a result.

You are arguing that the only way to avoid a war is to allow the mages to keep suffering a death by inches, because stopping Templars from torturing and raping them would be "taking sides." The thing is, "not taking sides" IS taking sides, it's just siding with whoever already has power, it's siding with the status quo.

It's like this: imagine I belong to a religion that, as part of our religious practices, eats the eyes of your particular ethnic group. Despite the fact that I think I'm just doing my proper religious duty, you see what I'm doing as evil. So, if you kill me, despite the fact that in my eyes, I am perfectly innocent, are you evil? Even if people have blinded several hundred members of your ethnic group in order to help me properly observe my religion, even if I've eaten the eyeballs myself, if I haven't actually blinded or killed anyone myself, am I innocent? I'd say no. That's what Elthina is: she's the conscientious eyeball-eater. But she's still an eyeball eater. And if you want to stop the systematic blinding of your people, you may have to kill her.

[Sinaxi]

DRTJR wrote...

A dictator?... You mean the grand Cleric? she's trying to prevent a war that would turn Kirkwall into a blood bath, which with her death it did. She was concered about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. for her taking one side over the other would mean that the side she didn't chose would retaliate. She was worried about everbody from mage to fruit salesman. She is Lawful good to a T,

No, she's lawful STUPID to a T. Even before Meredith had the Idol in the VERY beginning of Act 1 the guards are all saying that Meredith is the real power in Kirkwall. She doesn't get the Idol until Bartrand sells it to her sometime after the Deep Roads expedition, correct? Even before the Deep Roads expedition the Templars/Chantry were cracking down on Mages without much cause turning people Tranquil left and right.

Please tell me what it is that Elthina did in ANY way to try to "prevent" a war, besides speaking in a low calm voice that everyone should try to "work things out"..what is it that will accomplish? By not doing anything she effectively makes sure that something will eventually happen. She wasn't worried about the mages, if she was worried she would have stood up to Meredith a loooonggg time ago. All she did was sit back and watch things happen, she even said she "couldn't" get involved, blah blah, it's in the Maker's hand..blah blah I'm an idiot.

Modifié par Tidra, 14 juillet 2011 - 07:14 .

[hoorayforicecream]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

You're looking at the wrong parallells.

Moses was chaotic good: he unleashed the angel of death on thousands or millions of innocent Egyptians, but it was OK, because it was in pursuit of freedom for his people. That's how chaotic good works.

Actually Moses was only the messenger. Yahweh was the one who sent the angel of death, Moses only delivered the message to the Pharaoh.

How was what Anders did any worse than what the angel of death did? It killed infants in their sleep, Anders just killed some random people who happened to be in proximity to a dictator who was facilitating the torture of his people.

You're confusing the Chantry's role in all this. The Chantry isn't the dictatorship, and is not the ruling body. The Templar Order is part of the overall Chantry organization, but there's a clear division of power there. Meredith does not answer to the Grand Cleric. Meredith is the one who was running Kirkwall, not Elthina. If Elthina was really the dictator you claim, she'd have the power to send both Meredith and Orsino away and appoint more reasonable replacements on both sides like she agreed should happen at the beginning of act 3. It's precisely because she didn't have any power over them (and thus, could not be a dictator) that the situation kept spiraling out of control. She lacked the power to remove Meredith from office; only Meredith's superior could do that, and there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove that Meredith had gone off the deep end until it was too late and Elthina was already dead.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You're confusing the Chantry's role in all this. The Chantry isn't the dictatorship, and is not the ruling body. The Templar Order is part of the overall Chantry organization, but there's a clear division of power there. Meredith does not answer to the Grand Cleric. Meredith is the one who was running Kirkwall, not Elthina. If Elthina was really the dictator you claim, she'd have the power to send both Meredith and Orsino away and appoint more reasonable replacements on both sides like she agreed should happen at the beginning of act 3. It's precisely because she didn't have any power over them (and thus, could not be a dictator) that the situation kept spiraling out of control. She lacked the power to remove Meredith from office; only Meredith's superior could do that, and there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove that Meredith had gone off the deep end until it was too late and Elthina was already dead.

I was under the impression that the Grand Cleric was the Knight Commander's immediate superior. This is why the KC needs her permission to get the RoA, and if not, must go over her head to the Divine herself (the Divine, another non-military Chantry position, NOT a higher-ranking Templar). The highest positions in the Chantry are the authority to which the Knight Commanders must bow. The two institutions are as intertwined as the civil government of a nation and its military.

If you have a different impression of the Templar and Chantry interrelation and structure, do you have citations for it? All I have is the wiki, which is not infallible, but is better than nothing: 

The Order is composed of numerous branches, each of them centered around a specific community or region they are assigned to defend and monitor. Each of these chapters is ultimately led by a Knight-Commander, who in turn answers to the head of the local chantry, often a Grand Cleric, depending on the region in question.

[River5]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You're confusing the Chantry's role in all this. The Chantry isn't the dictatorship, and is not the ruling body. The Templar Order is part of the overall Chantry organization, but there's a clear division of power there. Meredith does not answer to the Grand Cleric. Meredith is the one who was running Kirkwall, not Elthina. If Elthina was really the dictator you claim, she'd have the power to send both Meredith and Orsino away and appoint more reasonable replacements on both sides like she agreed should happen at the beginning of act 3. It's precisely because she didn't have any power over them (and thus, could not be a dictator) that the situation kept spiraling out of control. She lacked the power to remove Meredith from office; only Meredith's superior could do that, and there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove that Meredith had gone off the deep end until it was too late and Elthina was already dead.

Errr...  You do know that Elthina is the very one who appointed Meredith as Knight-Commander of Kirkwall?  And that all Knight-Commanders AND First Enchanters must both directly answer to the Grand Clerics, right?

Just checking...

So yes, she always had the power to send both Meredith and Orsino away and appoint more reasonable replacements on both sides.  But she chose not to.

[River5]

Here is the codex entry for Elthina:

"We will never have peace unless we try to understand one another."

Reverend Mother Elthina assumed the mantle of grand cleric almost twenty years ago; she is responsible for the spiritual well-being of southern Free Marches (everything south of Starkhaven and the Minanter River). She has long been a calming presence in the city, renowned for her kindness and generosity. People frequently turn to her to mediate disputes-particularly those involving the powerful Templar Order, over whom she holds authority as the Chantry's ranking representative.

Some claim that Elthina's advanced age has rendered her ineffective, and that she allows Knight-Commander Meredith more leeway with each passing year. Some are calling on the new Divine, Justinia V, to appoint a replacement-but they do so quietly, for Elthina is by far the most beloved priest the city has ever known.


And Meredith:

"I have sympathy for the mages.  They bear a terrible curse-one that endangers not only themselves but innocents as well. We allow them freedom only at the risk of unleashing them upon the unwary."

Knight-Commander Meredith Stannard is a native of Kirkwall. An orphan who joined the Templar Order when quite young, she worked her way up the ranks by merit of sheer determination. She is credited with removing the previous viscount, Perrin Threnhold, from his position after he attempted to have the templars expelled from the city in 9:21 Dragon. The acting knight-commander was arrested and executed, and Meredith led a group of templars into the heart of the Keep to capture Threnhold. He was tried and imprisoned three days later by Grand Cleric Elthina and died from poisoning two years later. Meredith was subsequently elevated to her current position.

Many say the templars fought only to preserve their own position in Kirkwall, not to oppose Threnhold's tyranny. Others believe Meredith has always held the moral high ground, even if not all approve of her methods.  For now, she enjoys the grand cleric's full support and has free rein in Kirkwall as the commander of its most powerful military force.

Modifié par River5, 14 juillet 2011 - 10:12 .

[hoorayforicecream]

 Alright. I'm mistaken, Elthina is Meredith's superior. But I'm still not sure where your claims of "dictatorship" come in. Elthina wasn't the one who was actually calling the shots, unless somehow she was secretly telling Meredith what to do as acting Viscount (which seems unlikely, since there's no onscreen or codex evidence of this). 

You could argue that Orsino and Meredith should have been relieved from office in Act 2, but what had they done by that point to warrant being relieved of duty? Had some arguments? What decisions did they make that were questionable? The worst things they could be accused of were disagreeing, and some of their particular subordinates being bad eggs. But if you remember, Meredith turned down the Tranquil Solution. She asked for an Annulment, but was turned down. Sure, she's being zealous about tranquilizing mages (as they do increase in number in the Gallows from act 1 to act 3), but with the number of bad mages that Hawke kills, is it really that hard to believe that the ones she tranquilizes are the bad ones?

On top of this, where do you get information about the templars torturing mages? It's from Anders, who is hardly the shining example of impartiality (and who has never been in the circle in Kirkwall, and is projecting his feelings from his own circle experience). There are literally hundreds of mages, and (assumed to be) hundreds of templars. There are bound to be some bad eggs (Karras, Alrik, etc.), but there are also good eggs (Thrask, Keran). The only things we know is that they tranquilized Karl (who was guilty of helping mages become apostates). Bethany's letter doesn't mention any torture, or say anything about how it is unbearable. She actually says:

Life's not perfect here, mind you. The templars are mostly polite, and I know they're just doing their jobs, but some hold extreme views. There's one creep named Ser Alrik who likes harassing mages, but I'll steer clear of him!

There's not a lot of evidence of torture or bad stuff going on. Alain was raped, and that was an awful thing, but it seems unreasonable to hold the Knight-Commander fully responsible for the actions of one of her hundreds of subordinates. She should shoulder *some* of the blame, and work on making sure her templars don't continue (and there's no real evidence that it does), but is it grounds for dismissal?

The only time Meredith really goes off the deep end is after Elthina is dead, and there's a very legitimate reason for her to do so is because Elthina just died, and Meredith can only see that it's a mage that's responsible. By then she's already boarded the crazy train, but it's a bit premature to say that she should have been deposed before then without sufficient actual evidence.

Ironically, if Elthina had kicked out Meredith and Orsino without adequate proof, then she would have been the dictator you say she is.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 14 juillet 2011 - 11:08 .

[Zjarcal]

telephasic wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
The "stupid-stupid" comment is bad an the OP should feel bad for it.

I don't feel bad at all, although I know it came across as trolling.

You missed the joke.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 14 juillet 2011 - 11:01 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

As someone whose first origin was Dalish, I can't help but see the Chantry as a military engine of war, genocide, and apartheid. History's pretty bloody clear on that fact, completely apart from the subject of mages. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The first mage who is made tranquil past their harrowing? That's a completely adequate reason for getting rid of Meredith. That she allowed it to happen again and again, and left the Templar who suggested a 'tranquil solution' in a position where he could continue his experiments? That's a conclusive reason to get rid of her. That is straight-up illegal. The fact that she didn't instantly transfer Thrask for even suggesting the Tranquil solution is proof positive that Meredith is incompetent. The fact that the Divine didn't insist on his transfer or expulsion is proof that the Divine is irredeemably corrupt. It's easy as pie to prove that Karl was Harrowed, there are records to that effect in Ferelden I'm sure.

As a Dalish, my Warden is sitting back, looking at Kirkwall saying "Oh, only now are you noticing that you've given the Chantry too much power? You didn't notice it when they destroyed a country and subjected an entire race to apartheid? Really? Shemlen... you will never learn."

The nobles of Kirkwall also think that Meredith is out of control. Meredith blocks the appointment of a new Viscount, something that it should not be in her power to do. There are plenty of reasons for having her step down, obvious ones. There's a mage in the yard at the Gallows who claims mages are beaten for even having a conversation with an outsider. That seems like overkill. There's no system for petitioning to get rid of someone like Meredith, she serves at the Grand Cleric's discretion and can be removed at her discretion. Saying that appointing someone like Meredith to Knight Commander isn't the act of a dictator but removing her is... doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

If you honestly believe that the Grand Cleric has reason to believe that Meredith is the best person for the job of Knight Commander throughout the whole game and that the situation in Kirkwall would not be improved by making someone like Cullen or Thrask Knight Commander instead... then we just aren't seeing the same universe.

[hoorayforicecream]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

As someone whose first origin was Dalish, I can't help but see the Chantry as a military engine of war, genocide, and apartheid. History's pretty bloody clear on that fact, completely apart from the subject of mages. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Are you seriously going to blame the people of the present for actions that occurred hundreds of years ago? I don't give them a free pass, but there's also the whole 'giving refuge to the poor, the sick, the needy and turning no one away' aspect to the Chantry as well. Painting the entirety of an organization that has existed for centuries because of something that happened so long ago that neither side can actually remember the cause of the conflict seems foolish to me. 

The first mage who is made tranquil past their harrowing? That's a completely adequate reason for getting rid of Meredith. That she allowed it to happen again and again, and left the Templar who suggested a 'tranquil solution' in a position where he could continue his experiments? That's a conclusive reason to get rid of her. That is straight-up illegal. The fact that she didn't instantly transfer Thrask for even suggesting the Tranquil solution is proof positive that Meredith is incompetent. The fact that the Divine didn't insist on his transfer or expulsion is proof that the Divine is irredeemably corrupt. It's easy as pie to prove that Karl was Harrowed, there are records to that effect in Ferelden I'm sure.

Except there's no proof that this is the case. This is only conjecture on your part. Does the Knight Commander pass judgement on every mage? Would you fire Police Commissioner Gordon because one of the Gotham City street cops was found guilty of two counts of police brutality?

Even when things are illegal, there's still punishment that fits the crime. For the guy who made the decision to tranquilize a Harrowed mage, that's probably sacking. But where's the proof that it was Meredith who did it? Especially when the mage in question was not in any way innocent, but an inside man complicit in a conspiracy to allow apostates to escape from the circle?

The nobles of Kirkwall also think that Meredith is out of control. Meredith blocks the appointment of a new Viscount, something that it should not be in her power to do. There are plenty of reasons for having her step down, obvious ones. There's a mage in the yard at the Gallows who claims mages are beaten for even having a conversation with an outsider. That seems like overkill. There's no system for petitioning to get rid of someone like Meredith, she serves at the Grand Cleric's discretion and can be removed at her discretion. Saying that appointing someone like Meredith to Knight Commander isn't the act of a dictator but removing her is... doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

Meredith didn't block the appointment of a new Viscount until Act 3. You suggested she be deposed in Act 2, for rather specious reasons (as noted above). I find it ironic that the things you suggest Elthina should do would make her the dictator you said she is. That said, I never said Meredith wasn't acting crazy in Act 3, but for all the things she did, there's still insufficient evidence that what she did warranted her stepping down. 

If you honestly believe that the Grand Cleric has reason to believe that Meredith is the best person for the job of Knight Commander throughout the whole game and that the situation in Kirkwall would not be improved by making someone like Cullen or Thrask Knight Commander instead... then we just aren't seeing the same universe.

I believe that the Meredith had enough templars loyal to her that making her step down without sufficient evidence would have caused a schism in the templars of Kirkwall. Elthina isn't dumb. Meredith wasn't alone in her thinking; many of the templars agreed with her. Taking away their leader and telling her to step down without sufficient proof would only drive them to follow her, and once she's off the leash and only beholden to herself, then all hell breaks loose. I believe that Elthina was looking for that proof, and, sadly, became it herself.

[Giggles_Manically]

Its not actions but INTENT that decides where someone falls on the scale.

An action has no morality behind in itself, the intent that drives it does.

Anders does a terrible thing yes.
He however does it as part of a desire for a greater good.

Its a disgusting action that falls into the evil side of things by itself.
Its intent is for something good "mages being free".

If his intent was: TEH EVUL LULZ- then he would be on the evil scale.

While you can argue that many bad people have done heinous things in the name of "greater good" what Anders wants is basic dignity and rights for mages, which is not evil.

However he could slip into the evil scale if he keeps doing these actions again and again in the war.

[DRTJR]

Meredith was probably the picture of Mental health when she both joined and while she ascended through the ranks, the previous Vicount tried to banish the Templars from Kirkwall and Elthina needed a strong set of hands on the templars after the knight commander before her was killed to both unite the Templars and to hold onto the city. Meredith might not have spiraled into insanity if not for the Lyrium idol or have taken so long that she would have retired natually. The Templars where rendered into two or three seperate camps the Pro, Anti, and Eh? in terms of the Magi, maybe it's me but She rejected the idea of the Tranquill solution and did we know if she knew how far along Alriks plan went.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

As someone whose first origin was Dalish, I can't help but see the Chantry as a military engine of war, genocide, and apartheid. History's pretty bloody clear on that fact, completely apart from the subject of mages. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Are you seriously going to blame the people of the present for actions that occurred hundreds of years ago? I don't give them a free pass, but there's also the whole 'giving refuge to the poor, the sick, the needy and turning no one away' aspect to the Chantry as well. Painting the entirety of an organization that has existed for centuries because of something that happened so long ago that neither side can actually remember the cause of the conflict seems foolish to me.

The conflict hasn't ended, neither has the apartheid. Both are on-going. It's because of the Chantry that the Dalish cannot claim some unoccupied land for themselves and settle down. The templars still hunt their keepers. They would kill all the Dalish or send them to the alienages. The would take the keepers, the only thing that allows them to live outside the alienage system.  Worship of their gods is still illegal. The apartheid is still occurring, it is not a thing that has stopped. If you look at the elves now and say that they are not still victims of the apartheid the church created centuries ago, then I cannot comprehend how you account for their current plight. As far as I know, the Chantry's damnable truce still applies. If it were lifted, I think we would know about it. As long as that apartheid exists, the Chantry is responsible for it. Their "truce" created the situation, and they have not stopped threatening to do to other nations what they did to the Dales: to Orzammar in some playthroughs, and to Kirkwall in all playthroughs. They still hunt the survivors of their grand march and the apartheid they instituted still occurs everywhere in Thedas, so yes, I believe they are culpable for their current actions and for the social systems they have put in place that still stand. Of course I do. Until the canticle of Shartan is restored, religious freedom is allowed, and elves are free from apartheid, I will associate the Chantry with their oppression.

Except there's no proof that this is the case. This is only conjecture on your part. Does the Knight Commander pass judgement on every mage? Would you fire Police Commissioner Gordon because one of the Gotham City street cops was found guilty of two counts of police brutality?

Even when things are illegal, there's still punishment that fits the crime. For the guy who made the decision to tranquilize a Harrowed mage, that's probably sacking. But where's the proof that it was Meredith who did it? Especially when the mage in question was not in any way innocent, but an inside man complicit in a conspiracy to allow apostates to escape from the circle?

It's not about Meredith doing it, it's about her being too incompetent to prevent it. To use your commissioner Gordon example: it would be as if one of his officers wrote an article in favor of torturing suspects, showed it to him, and then kept torturing suspects without being fired. We know for a fact that Alrik showed Meredith his tranquil solution idea (otherwise how would she reject it?). We know for a fact that he continued to illegally tranquil mages after the fact. That shows that Meredith is either insanely incompetent or does not care that those who serve under her break the rules. Gross incompotence of that degree should be license for removal from office.

And regardless of guilt or innocence, it is simply illegal to tranquil a mage past their harrowing. You can hang them for crimes, sure, but I believe they must be found guilty in that case, and the only crimes officially punishable by death seem to be malificarum and murder. If she had been executing them after they were found guilty of crimes, or punishing them appropriately for crimes they were found guilty of, that would be a radically different matter. But that's not what's happening.

All in all, the situation in Kirkwall was obviously deteriorating. When something is going that badly, the clear solution is to clear out management from BOTH sides and replace it with better management.

If you believe the Templars are so out-of-control that they would have started a war when their own Grand Cleric (beloved throughout the city) appointed a new Knight Commander, then that is just more proof of the unreasonable amount of power they have. I don't even agree that the templars would have started a war over that: Cullen seems to be well-respected enough by Act 2 to make a decent Knight Commander, and I think the vast majority of Templars would follow him, especially if his stepping up coincided with Orsino stepping down and Cullen being permitted to appoint a new First Enchanter. That way everyone who failed at management would be out of the way, and we could start in with serious reforms.

Elthina had a job: appoint a responsible Knight Commander, and appoint a new one if the one she originally appointed was bad at her job. Meredith was incredibly bad at her job. I don't see how realizing you made a bad appointment and changing who you appointed to the position is something only a dictator can do... it is a normal function of all aspects of american politics that relate to temporary political appointments.

If you legitimately believe the Templars would revolt and start as war over a Grand Cleric appointing a new Knight Commander... then the order itself is more dangerous than any force we've yet seen in Kirkwall.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 15 juillet 2011 - 02:06 .