256 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

indeed. Morrigan has always been a staple for my pro-Merrill arguments. Morrigan had an entire book on the Eluvians, which helped her considerably. She also had an untainted, unbroken, functional (for one last time) Eluvian. Wherever Morrigan went had to be safe, or else she wouldn't have gone there in the first place (I'm thinking it's Arlathan)

But Merril isn't Morrigain. For one, Morrigain isn't stupid and wasn't bartering with demons. It's not about the Eluvian, and never was. It's about Merril thinking wishful thinking will keep her safe. 

[TEWR]

If she was contacting a demon in the Fade, I'd agree with you. It's the fact that this demon was trapped for centuries because it was sundered from the Veil like Justice was (difference being Audacity was completely trapped in the statue and couldn't free himself) and that he could only be freed by a powerful spell. Those two things are what make me trust Merrill's judgement.

She says in Act 3 she needs to meet with the demon again. She never said she was going to break the magic spell that kept it bound.

She's bringing Hawke along as a precaution. That doesn't mean she knows something bad is going to happen. That just means she wants to play it safe incase something happens.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 25 juillet 2011 - 08:52 .

[nos_astra]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
... that he could only be freed by a powerful spell.

And by powerful spell they mean what? Is Merrill a clever mage or a powerful mage? Does she use bloodmagic because otherwise she lacks the power needed?

Seriously, I can hardly express how much the writing sucks at times and how much I hate how they chicken out of a compelling plot line by making one or more character carry the Idiot Ball. <_<

[TEWR]

Honestly, I have no clue what type of spell could free Audacity. But it's obviously one the Keeper knows. I'm wondering if Audacity said to Marethari:

"To save her, you must free me! Because... you know... I'll use that Eluvian to escape."

*whispers* "Yea she'll definitely buy that. Hehehehe"

I honestly think Audacity had been playing Marethari and not Merrill.

However, I know the Eluvian wasn't going to be his ticket out given what we've learned about it in Witch Hunt and DA2.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 25 juillet 2011 - 11:46 .

[Sons of Horus]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Honestly, I have no clue what type of spell could free Audacity. But it's obviously one the Keeper knows. I'm wondering if Audacity said to Marethari:

"To save her, you must free me! Because... you know... I'll use that Eluvian to escape."

*whispers* "Yea she'll definitely buy that. Hehehehe"

I honestly think Audacity had been playing Marethari and not Merrill.

However, I know the Eluvian wasn't going to be his ticket out given what we've learned about it in Witch Hunt and DA2.

Maybe the Eluvian was Hawk's ticket out of Kirkwall, but i would know it would fail and Hawk would end up in the same cave.

Modifié par Sons of Horus, 25 juillet 2011 - 01:22 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

klarabella wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
... that he could only be freed by a powerful spell.

And by powerful spell they mean what? Is Merrill a clever mage or a powerful mage? Does she use bloodmagic because otherwise she lacks the power needed?

Seriously, I can hardly express how much the writing sucks at times and how much I hate how they chicken out of a compelling plot line by making one or more character carry the Idiot Ball. <_<

Just one character? Act III is a gigantic Idiot Plot.

[LobselVith8]

klarabella wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
... that he could only be freed by a powerful spell.

And by powerful spell they mean what? Is Merrill a clever mage or a powerful mage? Does she use bloodmagic because otherwise she lacks the power needed?

Seriously, I can hardly express how much the writing sucks at times and how much I hate how they chicken out of a compelling plot line by making one or more character carry the Idiot Ball. <_< 

Merrill explained the method to cleanse the shard of the Eluvian required a spell that she couldn't perform with ordinary magic because she lacked the necessary lyrium, so she used blood magic; it clearly worked because Merrill isn't infected like the elves in the Eluvian Ruins are in Witch Hunt (because of the remaining shards of the Eluvian contained within).

And everyone in Kirkwall seemed to hold the Idiot Ball - templars, mages, even Hawke...

[RampantAndroid]

LobselVith8 wrote...

klarabella wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
... that he could only be freed by a powerful spell.

And by powerful spell they mean what? Is Merrill a clever mage or a powerful mage? Does she use bloodmagic because otherwise she lacks the power needed?

Seriously, I can hardly express how much the writing sucks at times and how much I hate how they chicken out of a compelling plot line by making one or more character carry the Idiot Ball. <_< 

Merrill explained the method to cleanse the shard of the Eluvian required a spell that she couldn't perform with ordinary magic because she lacked the necessary lyrium, so she used blood magic; it clearly worked because Merrill isn't infected like the elves in the Eluvian Ruins are in Witch Hunt (because of the remaining shards of the Eluvian contained within).

And everyone in Kirkwall seemed to hold the Idiot Ball - templars, mages, even Hawke...

Well - frankly...Kirkwall seems to be a city full of people working on only half a brain. I don't think I'd really put hawke in the group, but certainly everyone has their head in the clouds. Every mage just MAGICALLY becomes a bloody abomination the second they're backed into a corner...and frankly, the scene where in lowtown you side with the mages, then run to the hanged man - you encounter a woman being backed into a corner by templars. I saw no evidence of blood magic...she was just plain scared. Yet, she suddenly becomes an abomination. Frankly, if it is SO easy for a mage to become an abomination - just scare them - then why on earth should I be defending them? If it's so easy, why didn't Bethany turn into one? If it's so easy, why should I not be in support of killing them all off or making them tranquil?

In the end, neither side is worth supporting. Frankly, I'd have taken the "Kill the templars AND the mages, just spare my own sister" option had it been given. They don't make the mages in any way likeable. The only mage that seems to see any amount of reason is your sister....and somehow, I don't know how....they leave apostates they captured wander the courtyard of the gallows freely...but your sister who is well liked and well behaved remains missing the entire 2nd and 3rd act.

But as someone else said, paper thin plot. The entire game could have been a single DLC pack...

[Sepewrath]

So because you saw 20 mages become abominations, that means that is the case for every mage in the world? So we should have chopped off every magic head in Ferelden because the next Uldred might have been hanging about right? Becoming an abomination would obviously be easier for some versus others and you know, why you mostly saw the easy victims? Because its a video game, you wouldn't be fighting the well behaved, non abominations, so only hanging out with them would get a little boring I think. But that's just my opinion.

[Morroian]

RampantAndroid wrote...

Well - frankly...Kirkwall seems to be a city full of people working on only half a brain. I don't think I'd really put hawke in the group, but certainly everyone has their head in the clouds. Every mage just MAGICALLY becomes a bloody abomination the second they're backed into a corner...and frankly, the scene where in lowtown you side with the mages, then run to the hanged man - you encounter a woman being backed into a corner by templars. I saw no evidence of blood magic...she was just plain scared. Yet, she suddenly becomes an abomination. Frankly, if it is SO easy for a mage to become an abomination - just scare them - then why on earth should I be defending them? If it's so easy, why didn't Bethany turn into one? If it's so easy, why should I not be in support of killing them all off or making them tranquil?

Its already been pointed out in this thread that the veil is thin in Kirkwall as per the enigma of Kirkwall codices and its not to much of a leap to conclude that this thinning is what causes the craziness.

[RampantAndroid]

Morroian wrote...

Its already been pointed out in this thread that the veil is thin in Kirkwall as per the enigma of Kirkwall codices and its not to much of a leap to conclude that this thinning is what causes the craziness.

Suspension of disbelief only goes so far...and that explanation just seems...flimsy. I mean, hell...correct me if I am wrong, but in DAO you save the Arl of Redcliffe's son when he is possessed, right? You go into the fade and save him.

Yet in DA2, Marethari tells you that once possessed, one cannot be saved and must be killed. What gives, other than "HEY LOOK ANOTHER ABOMINATION, KILL!"

[Morroian]

RampantAndroid wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Its already been pointed out in this thread that the veil is thin in Kirkwall as per the enigma of Kirkwall codices and its not to much of a leap to conclude that this thinning is what causes the craziness.

Suspension of disbelief only goes so far...and that explanation just seems...flimsy. I mean, hell...correct me if I am wrong, but in DAO you save the Arl of Redcliffe's son when he is possessed, right? You go into the fade and save him.

Yet in DA2, Marethari tells you that once possessed, one cannot be saved and must be killed. What gives, other than "HEY LOOK ANOTHER ABOMINATION, KILL!"

The enigma of kirkwall codices seems specifically placed to lead the player to the conclusion I mentioned, there's no point to them otherwise and we have seen before that places like Kirkwall do lead to craziness, the Blackmarsh for instance. 

[Lincoln MuaDib]

Well, my FemHawke was blonde, sassy and walked around in her armoured underwear all the time. (yeah, I know, cliche). She supported the Mages up to and including deciding Fenris was a whiny emo, and Anders not only was her bedmate, even after exploding the Chantry she refused to kill him. Resulting in the exiled prince Sebastian leaving my party (WTF! You're DLC! I OWN you, ****, you can't leave!) Guess what she was? Yep, rogue. I totally wanted to smack Orsino and Meredith's heads together- or just run them both through with my twin blades- pretty much 5 minutes into Act III. What sucks is that, no matter which side you choose, Mage or Templar, in the end both sides bow to you as the Awesome Hero of Fereldan you truly are. So why not be Viscount if you sided with the mages? Hmmmmm. Anders had better be veeerrrry grateful to me, if you know what I mean.

[Lincoln MuaDib]

On a not-entirely-unrelated note . . . the insufferable superiority of the Arishok made me want to sit on his face and pass wind the first second I met him. This feeling only intensified the more I spoke to him. At least you get to b*ch-slap Isobella during the kidnapping thing. Though I did enjoy giving her the "Ha ha, no ship for you!" speech.

[Rifneno]

RampantAndroid wrote...

Suspension of disbelief only goes so far...and that explanation just seems...flimsy. I mean, hell...correct me if I am wrong, but in DAO you save the Arl of Redcliffe's son when he is possessed, right? You go into the fade and save him.

Yet in DA2, Marethari tells you that once possessed, one cannot be saved and must be killed. What gives, other than "HEY LOOK ANOTHER ABOMINATION, KILL!"

I believe the official explanation was that a demon forcibly possessing someone is different than someone that made a willing deal with the demon like Connor did.

Of course, now you have to ask "Why, then, can Justice not be seperated from Anders?"  I think the answer to that was "...  Hey, look over there!  *runs away*"

[erilben]

Rifneno wrote...

RampantAndroid wrote...

Suspension of disbelief only goes so far...and that explanation just seems...flimsy. I mean, hell...correct me if I am wrong, but in DAO you save the Arl of Redcliffe's son when he is possessed, right? You go into the fade and save him.

Yet in DA2, Marethari tells you that once possessed, one cannot be saved and must be killed. What gives, other than "HEY LOOK ANOTHER ABOMINATION, KILL!"

I believe the official explanation was that a demon forcibly possessing someone is different than someone that made a willing deal with the demon like Connor did.

Of course, now you have to ask "Why, then, can Justice not be seperated from Anders?"  I think the answer to that was "...  Hey, look over there!  *runs away*"

It's Irving that said you can only save Connor because he willingly let the demon possess him. If he was possessed by force, you would have had to kill Connor. But that gets contradicted by Fiona who was forcibly possessed and then was saved.

Modifié par erilben, 26 juillet 2011 - 01:37 .

[Macropodmum]

Rifneno wrote...

RampantAndroid wrote...

Suspension of disbelief only goes so far...and that explanation just seems...flimsy. I mean, hell...correct me if I am wrong, but in DAO you save the Arl of Redcliffe's son when he is possessed, right? You go into the fade and save him.

Yet in DA2, Marethari tells you that once possessed, one cannot be saved and must be killed. What gives, other than "HEY LOOK ANOTHER ABOMINATION, KILL!"

I believe the official explanation was that a demon forcibly possessing someone is different than someone that made a willing deal with the demon like Connor did.

Of course, now you have to ask "Why, then, can Justice not be seperated from Anders?"  I think the answer to that was "...  Hey, look over there!  *runs away*"

I'm guessing that if it was actually true then we would have to kill Justice in the fade just like we did with Connor's demon?  Mind you after seeing Anders the way he was in DA2 I would quite happily go into the fade and do away with Justice...

[CrimsonZephyr]

erilben wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

RampantAndroid wrote...

Suspension of disbelief only goes so far...and that explanation just seems...flimsy. I mean, hell...correct me if I am wrong, but in DAO you save the Arl of Redcliffe's son when he is possessed, right? You go into the fade and save him.

Yet in DA2, Marethari tells you that once possessed, one cannot be saved and must be killed. What gives, other than "HEY LOOK ANOTHER ABOMINATION, KILL!"

I believe the official explanation was that a demon forcibly possessing someone is different than someone that made a willing deal with the demon like Connor did.

Of course, now you have to ask "Why, then, can Justice not be seperated from Anders?"  I think the answer to that was "...  Hey, look over there!  *runs away*"

It's Irving that said you can only save Connor because he willingly let the demon possess him. If he was possessed by force, you would have had to kill Connor. But that gets contradicted by Fiona who was forcibly possessed and then was saved.

Perhaps Irving was a bit rusty on his demonology? He was a mage on the straight and narrow, after all. It's unlikely he'd know more about demons than the Chantry wanted him to know.

[Shadow Fox]

Rifneno wrote...

elikal71 wrote...

The odd thing is: apparently every mage can practice blood magic without any training, or "explode" into an Abomination just so. It's as if a person could burtst into spontaneous combustion out of the blue. It sorta makes no sense, for again, if magic where THAT dangerous, it must be forbidden, end of story. Orsinio claims never to have practiced blood magic, and yet he has an elaborate monster transformation like the best of them. Mages can just be aggressive or cornered and ALL of a sudden transform into monsters! I just found this so unplausible.

In DA:O a mage would become an abomination when he deals with demons, and only after a long descent into evil. It would be a long road from nice person to exploding monster. In DA2 this change can happen from one second to another just so. *snap* Hey I was a nice mage all my life, but you pissed me off and BLAM I become a monster-thing. It's just making no sense.


(EDIT: Heh, good to see some other people than me never cared much about this mother.)

I blame it on Kirkwall's paper-mache veil. It's plausible that the crazy abomination rules would be such at Kirkwall. The part that's retarded beyond comprehension is that a) they hid it in some obscure codexes so most players had no idea about an essential piece of the story, that nobody seems to notice the entire city is a portal to Hell. I'd blame it on a Chantry conspiracy to drive the mages nuts so they could use it as an example of why they have to lock them up, but even if that was true the Circle mages should've known. The second the Starkhaven mages, or even Bethany got to Kirkwall they should've realized the entire city was damned.

And yeah, I don't care for Leandra. First she blames Hawke for Bethany or Carver's death. What the HELL? That's the kind of thing that can scar someone for life. Then she decides laying low and not attracting the templars to her mage child is no fun so she starts petitioning to get her family's land back (which her family rightfully lost).

I really wanted to smack her when she blamed Hawke for the sibling's death because Hawke could'nt have done anything I wish I could make Hawke say something like that. it seemed that all she wanted after they got to Kirkwall was to reclaim her noblity regardless of what her children thought and you can't make Hawke agree with Carver or disagree with Bethaney on the issue because plot demands it.

Modifié par Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke, 26 juillet 2011 - 04:23 .

[Shadow Fox]

Morroian wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

We get to meet Leliana, who is alive even if she died in DAO with no explanation, and suddenly she hates mages, even if the Warden mage is still "close to her heart." But I guess that's explained by the hints that she was just a spy and her time with the Warden was a total act, thus destroying one of the most popular characters in DAO. Oh, and she's there about all the mage trouble but Hawke can't think to say "the mages are pissy because your Knight-Commander is brutal tyrant whose only copy of both Chantry and Municipal law is next to her chamberpot."

Did you kill Leliana in DAO? And there is an explanation its in the codices you might not like it but its there.

As for her opinion on mages maybe I chose different dialogue options but I didn't get the feeling that she hated all mages.

So Leliana wasn't turned into an evil **** like he was impling?*sighs in releif* she was my favorite character in Origins along with Alistar.

and I always believed the Codexs were not completely accurate to begin with because history is never clear and is always biased by the writer.

[Rifneno]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

We get to meet Leliana, who is alive even if she died in DAO with no explanation, and suddenly she hates mages, even if the Warden mage is still "close to her heart." But I guess that's explained by the hints that she was just a spy and her time with the Warden was a total act, thus destroying one of the most popular characters in DAO. Oh, and she's there about all the mage trouble but Hawke can't think to say "the mages are pissy because your Knight-Commander is brutal tyrant whose only copy of both Chantry and Municipal law is next to her chamberpot."

Did you kill Leliana in DAO? And there is an explanation its in the codices you might not like it but its there.

As for her opinion on mages maybe I chose different dialogue options but I didn't get the feeling that she hated all mages.

So Leliana wasn't turned into an evil **** like he was impling?*sighs in releif* she was my favorite character in Origins along with Alistar.

and I always believed the Codexs were not completely accurate to begin with because history is never clear and is always biased by the writer.

If you go back to DAO, you'll find when she first joins the Warden that she's wearing an amulet of the Seekers.  No one thought anything of it at the time, but in DA2 when we find out what the seekers are and what they do...  it strongly implies her entire time with the Warden was just an act.  She never stopped being a bard, she just started being one for the Divine.

"I'm uncomfortable around Chantry sisters. All because of that red-headed trickster in Lothering." - Aveline

[Morroian]

Rifneno wrote...

If you go back to DAO, you'll find when she first joins the Warden that she's wearing an amulet of the Seekers.  No one thought anything of it at the time, but in DA2 when we find out what the seekers are and what they do...  it strongly implies her entire time with the Warden was just an act.  She never stopped being a bard, she just started being one for the Divine.

The fact that she was in lothering for 3 years IIRC would imply that it wasn't an act in DAO. She became a Seeker afterward when Dorothea became the Divine.

[TEWR]

I'm wondering if Marethari could've been saved considering Audacity was sundered from the Veil entirely like Justice was.

The ritual that saved Connor only works for demons in the Fade, so I doubt it.

Besides, that idiot deserved to die for taking a trapped demon into her body. Especially when she was the one who said it was trapped and couldn't harm anyone.

[nos_astra]

RampantAndroid wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Its already been pointed out in this thread that the veil is thin in Kirkwall as per the enigma of Kirkwall codices and its not to much of a leap to conclude that this thinning is what causes the craziness.

Suspension of disbelief only goes so far...and that explanation just seems...flimsy. I mean, hell...correct me if I am wrong, but in DAO you save the Arl of Redcliffe's son when he is possessed, right? You go into the fade and save him.

Yet in DA2, Marethari tells you that once possessed, one cannot be saved and must be killed. What gives, other than "HEY LOOK ANOTHER ABOMINATION, KILL!"

Marethari says that even if you managed to reverse the possession the mage will be forever altered and psychologically damaged. That puts a new twist to saving Connor and I'm glad it does. It makes killing Connor sound like the merciful option.

Now, when in DAO Redcliffe it takes vast amounts of Lyrium (where does a Dalish Keeper get this) or blood magic (isn't she strictly against blood magic?) to get ONE mage into the Fade. Try to reconcile this with how your party enters the Fade in DA2 to save Feynriel. In DAO this takes the power of a creature of the Fade itself to do that (not that I like that particular plot twist).

I keep wondering why people go on and on about how well written DA is supposed to be when it's clearly not.

[Rifneno]

Morroian wrote...

The fact that she was in lothering for 3 years IIRC would imply that it wasn't an act in DAO. She became a Seeker afterward when Dorothea became the Divine.

How do we know she was there for 3 years? Not that it would matter, they've retconned a lot bigger things than that. You can hand Anders over for execution, kill Justice at the bottom of the Dragonbone Wastelands, and they both survive, become BFF's in the Wardens, and merge anyway.

I think the fact she had Seeker equipment in DAO and her view on mages is totally different ("We can't do this! Some must live!" at a tower full of abominations, "You want freedom? There's freedom in death!" to mages pissy about being beaten and raped in Kirkwall) is a little too much for me to swallow. Besides, they seem to love ruining popular characters by rewriting their personalities to make them detestable. Again, look at Janders.