256 réponses à ce sujet

[nitefyre410]

dragonflight288 wrote...

The Chantry does it also. Omitting elves from the chant because it is too heretical to believe elves are equal with humans.

Magic exists to serve man, it seems the templars only believe what they want to believe. If the mages died and didn't fight, Meredith and the templars would say they were corrupt because there wouldn't be any witnesses to say otherwise.

Hence why I said institutions  and yes your spot on and you sig quote hit says it all

[Gervaise]

If you let Ser Kerras live,then you are already very anti-mage, templar hard line in outlook and therefore presumably talking to the guy and being told Meredith has already applied for anullment will only reinforce your outlook.   If you killed him, then this knowledge is never made available, even if you work for Meredith.  You have to base your decisions on what takes place in the story.  My summary above is based on what I think is generally available and so you do not have to take a sides to get the information. 
My point is that a lot of the information regarding mage repression comes from Anders.  Yes, you see Karl has been made tranquil, but no one from the other side tells you why or who did it, whether it was done without the knowledge of Meredith, etc. You are not given the opportunity to challenge anyone about this - because it is meant to be illegal.
Even Anders is inconsistent, saying how bad and repressed mages are, forbidden love and everything (and you only get that if you romance him), then when we catch that mage in the brothel and he says he has never had sex, Anders replies with something like "really we were going at it like bunnies in Ferelden, well before everyone turned into abominations."  Actually that was far more like the old Anders from Awakening, who found robes useful because you can take a quicky up against a wall.  Of course Anders being inconsistent is understandable because he is possessed and Justice is really the focussed, obsessive one, heavily influencing Anders behaviour. 
If you talk with other people, like Alain, he admits that Kirkwall is different from his previous experience.  I think there was another mage whose name I can't remember, who also says it is different in Circles elsewhere.   If you initially send Feynriel to the Circle and then help him escape to Tevinter, he later writes to you expressing shock at what he has witnessed done by mages there and admitting that maybe the Circle was right about some things.  Again, the story with him does not back up severe repression, made tranquil for trivialities, because despite the nightmares, this does not happen, he falls into a coma and then  his mother knows what has happened and it would appear has applied for help with the sanction of Orsino and both the Keeper and Hawke have access to him.  Even if you are meant to assume he is still in the Circle and you are contacting him in his dreams, he still apparently finds it easy enough to escape afterwards.
Alain has twice been involved with escaping from the Circle, has been side-kick to two murderous blood mages and used blood magic himself, yet if you ask for mercy for him, he shows up in the final gathering, fully functional and un-tranquilised.   Oh yes, and when I asked him why he did it, (supported Grace), he makes some comment about Templars make you do things - hinting at something but it takes a big leap to go from that to rape or is this yet another conversation you only get if you do certain things.
Playing through Act 3 as a Meredith supporter (which I did purely to get those conversations), you get the story about her sister, which gives at least some insight into why she behaves as she does.  Couple that with the fact that Kirkwall as a location does seem to have a very high proportion of apostates running free, blood mages, demon summoning, possessed Templars, etc, he hardline attitude is at least partially understandable.  As she gives you the Best Served Cold quest, it reinforces her view that there is insurrection and corruption in her ranks.  Whilst you can insist that Orsino is not involved, her comment that he must therefore be incompetent is not entirely unreasonable.  Also he was insighting the crowd at the beginning of the Act.  Interestingly enough, if you take this quest after talking the the Grand Cleric, then she complains that the Grand Cleric is supporting the mages and suspects Orsino's influence, when in fact it appears to you that inspite of the Grand Cleric saying she can't take sides, in fact she has followed your request to do more for the mages.
So right up to the Final Straw, the arguments for supporting either side.  Then, boom, and we are forced to commit.   So, not wishing to mass murder innocent mages (including your sister), you go against Meredith and whilst running into blood mages in the streets is understandable, how come there are so many instances of them inside the Circle?  The cut scene with the Templars cutting down the mages is ridiculous - if you aren't going to defend yourself, then you run, not wait for them to come and get you - and the battering ram on the door has to be a big give away.  Oh and I watched the action during the confrontation with Orsino and this time when the force field was erected, it left the mages I saved on one side, and us, Orsino and four Templars on the other.   Initially I ignored Orsino, killed the Templars and watched as the other mages ran away.  So quite where the corpses came from that he used I have no idea.  They weren't there when we started the previous battle, we stopped the Templars getting to the mages, yet there they were.  If you are playing the pro Mages ending, it really doesn't add up.  
Horray for Bethany (Not a blood mage, doesn't summon demons, doesn't turn into an abomination - Malcolm Hawke would be proud) who, horrified, voices what you are thinking - why did you do it?  

[miskatonica]

You know, at this point, I think Malcolm Hawke was an example of a mage with integrity. Eh, I expect that at some point (after more DLC, who knows) we'll find out he was a TERRIBLE PERSON or something, or had a DARK ANGSTY PAST before meeting Leandra, but at least from the point where the Hawke kids knew him and Leandra knew him... he seemed like a decent guy. A decent husband and father, anyway.

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Sepewrath wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Fighting back at the Templars would change absolutely nothing. On the cotnrary, it would probably make it a whole lot worse, since now they would have shown every Templar, from the oldest to the youngest, in that particular Circle, just how bad magic can turn, and they will not be lenient towards the mages ever again.

If they took their punishment with silence, they would have proven the Templars wrong, and they would, more likely than not, have left a strong impression on the younger Templars.

To actually let the demons possess you during an annulment is simply the worst possible idea you can get, for all mages everywhere.

That is total nonsense, their suppose to lay down and die in hopes, that some young Templar's will say "Well hey, those people we just commited genocide on for no reason, they were alright. If I hadn't chopped their heads off, we could have been friends" No one is just going to sit back and take an unjust punishment(that is death mind you), with a smile one their face in hopes of some rose colored future, that's not gonna happen.

Also your looking at it from only one angle, look at it from the mages perception. Isn't the Templar's trying to kill them for no reason, proving the mages perception of the Templar's to be right. And in doing so, it proves the theory that mages should not bow to the will of the Chantry, as it clearly doesn't protect their lives.

When you are faced with certain death, you have two choices. Either you die like a beast, slave to instinct and survival. Or you die for what you believe, like a martyr. The martyr death is infinitely more powerful than the first example.

And wether or not the Templars were "right" in annulling the circle is irrelevant. If the mages fight back, they've just made the Templars right. If the mages doesn't fight back at all, but fall on their swords, they will prove the Templars entirely wrong, and it will send a strong message.

You seem to be under the impression that people become martyrs by submitting to the opposition. Which is bullcrap. Fighting t the death for your cause is what makes a martyr.

[Sepewrath]

Well actually what makes someone a martyr is by having people rally around their death and push for their cause. Anyone can die for their cause in any way, if no one cares, then their not a martyr, their just some dead guy/gal. But a requirement is definitely not you simply laying down and dying, you can fight tooth and nail to survive and still be a martyr. If Loghain had died fighting the Orlesian's he would have been a martyr, he didn't have to get on his knees with his hands on his head, while some chevalier ran him through to be one.

[LobselVith8]

Gervaise wrote...

My point is that a lot of the information regarding mage repression comes from Anders.  Yes, you see Karl has been made tranquil, but no one from the other side tells you why or who did it, whether it was done without the knowledge of Meredith, etc. 

Except Hawke can find the note about Karl being made tranquil on orders from Ser Alrik, and that the Rite was under question from another templar who Alrik threatened in the letter. After seeing Alrik threaten a child mage with tranquility and implied rape, as well as hearing what the other Circle mages say about Alrik in the Gallows, it's not difficult for Hawke to see how bad things are for the Kirkwall mages when they talk about how they were being made tranquil despite taking their Harrowing, or how they say that Alrik tells them that only tranquil mages will earn the Maker's forgiveness.

Gervaise wrote...

You are not given the opportunity to challenge anyone about this - because it is meant to be illegal.
Even Anders is inconsistent, saying how bad and repressed mages are, forbidden love and everything (and you only get that if you romance him), then when we catch that mage in the brothel and he says he has never had sex, Anders replies with something like "really we were going at it like bunnies in Ferelden, well before everyone turned into abominations." 

Emile was in the Hanged Man. Also, different Circles of Magi have different policies. Some permit relationships, and others forbid them. Given how monstrous the Kirkwall Circle seems to be, it's not surprising that it's different than the Ferelden Circle. However, the general message is the same: mages are under subjugation to the Chantry. I don't see how Hawke could miss this, especially if he's an apostate and has been living his whole life on the run from the templars that sought to capture his father, his sister, and him. It's what bothers me about warrior/rogue Hawke doing nothing about Cullen taking Bethany away - he knows what happened to Karl, but he's going to do nothing to protect his sister? Asinine writing.

Gervaise wrote...

Actually that was far more like the old Anders from Awakening, who found robes useful because you can take a quicky up against a wall.  Of course Anders being inconsistent is understandable because he is possessed and Justice is really the focussed, obsessive one, heavily influencing Anders behaviour. 

It's not inconsistent, it's an issue of Anders speaking about how the Ferelden Circle was. Irving wasn't always in charge, and we know that Aneirin was nearly killed as a child by templars because of the claim that he was "maleficar," despite Aneirin being a Dalish healer when The Warden encounters him. If Anders is speaking about pre-Irving, around the same time that Aneirin left and was hunted down, then it makes sense that his relationship with Karl transpired in this kind of enviornment.

Gervaise wrote...

If you talk with other people, like Alain, he admits that Kirkwall is different from his previous experience. 

 
Alain says that Starkhaven was bad, and that Kirkwall is worse. We also have three insane mages from Starkhaven's Circle: Decimus, Quentin (based on Gascard's note), and Grace. Alain also seems to be a rape victim of the templars, based on his dialogue in Act II and what he says in "Best Served Cold." I don't really hold it against him that he sided with Thrask to remove a dictator from power, especially when Thrask is one of the few reasonable who Hawke meets in Kirkwall.

Gervaise wrote...

I think there was another mage whose name I can't remember, who also says it is different in Circles elsewhere.   If you initially send Feynriel to the Circle and then help him escape to Tevinter, he later writes to you expressing shock at what he has witnessed done by mages there and admitting that maybe the Circle was right about some things.  Again, the story with him does not back up severe repression, made tranquil for trivialities, because despite the nightmares, this does not happen, he falls into a coma and then  his mother knows what has happened and it would appear has applied for help with the sanction of Orsino and both the Keeper and Hawke have access to him.  Even if you are meant to assume he is still in the Circle and you are contacting him in his dreams, he still apparently finds it easy enough to escape afterwards.

Except there are Circle mages who say they are being made tranquil on orders from Ser Alrik despite having gone through the Harrowing, mages who address that Alrik says only tranquil mages are forgiven by the Maker, and Hawke encounters Ella being threatened with tranquility and implied rape simply for wanting to tell her mother that she was still alive (and Bethany references her as a child in her letter to Hawke if she was sent to the Circle). That can inform Hawke about the authenticity of Anders' claims and what the Kirkwall Circle is really like.

Gervaise wrote...

Alain has twice been involved with escaping from the Circle, has been side-kick to two murderous blood mages and used blood magic himself, yet if you ask for mercy for him, he shows up in the final gathering, fully functional and un-tranquilised.   Oh yes, and when I asked him why he did it, (supported Grace), he makes some comment about Templars make you do things - hinting at something but it takes a big leap to go from that to rape or is this yet another conversation you only get if you do certain things.

It doesn't seem to be to Cullen's knowledge that Alain knows blood magic, if Hawke asks the Knight-Captain to spare the mages and the templars who sided with Ser Thrask.

Gervaise wrote...

Playing through Act 3 as a Meredith supporter (which I did purely to get those conversations), you get the story about her sister, which gives at least some insight into why she behaves as she does.  Couple that with the fact that Kirkwall as a location does seem to have a very high proportion of apostates running free, blood mages, demon summoning, possessed Templars, etc, he hardline attitude is at least partially understandable. 

Hawke could see her hard line as the reason that caused mages and templars to ally with one another to rid Kirkwall of a dictator (Best Served Cold) and what causes Keran to leave the Order of Templars as long as Meredith is Knight-Commander. It's the templars who serve Meredith who tortured a child hunter of the Dalish and attempt to murder a woman for feeding her tortured and starved mage cousin.

Gervaise wrote...

As she gives you the Best Served Cold quest, it reinforces her view that there is insurrection and corruption in her ranks.  Whilst you can insist that Orsino is not involved, her comment that he must therefore be incompetent is not entirely unreasonable.  Also he was insighting the crowd at the beginning of the Act. 

 
He was inciting the crowd because Meredith is a dictator who has illegally taken power, so it doesn't really support that Orsino's incompetent, especially when Meredith is the one who seems to hold all the power in the Kirkwall Circle (and even over the city-state where the Circle resides in).

I think the problem is that the mage and templar dichotomy was badly handled, especially in Act III. There's no subtlety, there's no nuance, it's really poorly done. Origins did a better job of presenting the player with good templars with the Lothering templars (who the sequel rectonned into abandoning Lothering despite Ser Bryant telling his templars they would stay to protect the people) and Ser Otto, and even Greagoir when he regretfully discussed the Right of Annulment made more sense and was much better than Meredith wanting to murder hundreds simply to appease a hypothetical mob.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Plaintiff wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Sepewrath wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Fighting back at the Templars would change absolutely nothing. On the cotnrary, it would probably make it a whole lot worse, since now they would have shown every Templar, from the oldest to the youngest, in that particular Circle, just how bad magic can turn, and they will not be lenient towards the mages ever again.

If they took their punishment with silence, they would have proven the Templars wrong, and they would, more likely than not, have left a strong impression on the younger Templars.

To actually let the demons possess you during an annulment is simply the worst possible idea you can get, for all mages everywhere.

That is total nonsense, their suppose to lay down and die in hopes, that some young Templar's will say "Well hey, those people we just commited genocide on for no reason, they were alright. If I hadn't chopped their heads off, we could have been friends" No one is just going to sit back and take an unjust punishment(that is death mind you), with a smile one their face in hopes of some rose colored future, that's not gonna happen.

Also your looking at it from only one angle, look at it from the mages perception. Isn't the Templar's trying to kill them for no reason, proving the mages perception of the Templar's to be right. And in doing so, it proves the theory that mages should not bow to the will of the Chantry, as it clearly doesn't protect their lives.

When you are faced with certain death, you have two choices. Either you die like a beast, slave to instinct and survival. Or you die for what you believe, like a martyr. The martyr death is infinitely more powerful than the first example.

And wether or not the Templars were "right" in annulling the circle is irrelevant. If the mages fight back, they've just made the Templars right. If the mages doesn't fight back at all, but fall on their swords, they will prove the Templars entirely wrong, and it will send a strong message.

You seem to be under the impression that people become martyrs by submitting to the opposition. Which is bullcrap. Fighting t the death for your cause is what makes a martyr.

Dying for your cause makes you a martyr. If your cause is pacifism, you do not martyr your cause by fighting to the death...