404 réponses à ce sujet

[Rifneno]

XxDeonxX wrote...

You failed the change my mind as you stated =P

 My hawke didn't spend ten years building a life to throw it all away in one night and be forced to go into hiding from the templars

So where's your Hawke when Cassandra is interrogating Varric? Oh, right..   

[Jaykus]

You got to love it when people are convinced that one choice is the correct and/or moral one and completely miss the point of mature fantasy.

[Ryzaki]

The only thing that will change my Hawke's mind about siding with the Templars is them killing his sibling. And since in his canon said sibling dies from the taint/ogre that ain't happening. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 août 2011 - 01:34 .

[nitefyre410]

Jaykus wrote...

You got to love it when people are convinced that one choice is the correct and/or moral one and completely miss the point of mature fantasy.

As I said in the Anders thread -  A choice between  FUBAR and  Frakked up.   



  
To answer your question Rifneno.

My Hawke is waiting for Varric  to get a good beat on  Cassandra's motives, throw her off our trail  and get out. Who better to send in than the smooth talking dwarf?

Modifié par nitefyre410, 03 août 2011 - 01:41 .

[Rifneno]

Jaykus wrote...

You got to love it when people are convinced that one choice is the correct and/or moral one and completely miss the point of mature fantasy.

You got to love it when people think writers are infallible and a story always comes out exactly how they'd hoped it would.  What I don't love, however, is pretentious garbage in the place of an intelligent counterpoint.

[Jaykus]

And I suppose you 're the one to know how they hope it 'd come out? Counterpoint to what? To the OP's arguments relying on another scifi story to change my mind? Or those who spout absolute moral statements such as that no people should be treated in a certain way? Morality can be debated in the real world - that's what philosophy is for - let alone in a fantasy game where people are different thanks to magic and a perfectly valid case can be made for treating them diffferently.

I tend not to assume I know what the developers were aiming for - I take the world as it is, that's why I play fantasy games like dragon age.

Modifié par Jaykus, 03 août 2011 - 02:24 .

[Rifneno]

Jaykus wrote...

And I suppose you 're the one to know how they hope it 'd come out? Counterpoint to what? To the OP's arguments relying on another scifi story to change my mind? Or those who spout absolute moral statements such as that no people should be treated in a certain way? Morality can be debated in the real world - that's what philosophy is for - let alone in a fantasy game where people are different thanks to magic and a perfectly valid case can be made for treating them diffferently.

I tend not to assume I know what the developers were aiming for - I take the world as it is, that's why I play fantasy games like dragon age.

You go right ahead with that.  The rest of us, who have seen a single dev post, advertisement for the game, or heard the name "Dragon Age" mentioned by someone we walked by at Circuit City, will continue to rest assured in the knowledge that the devs were trying to make these decisions moral grey areas.

If you think "people shouldn't be raped, beaten, and murdered for having the wrong DNA" is "spouting absolute moral statements" then you have some very, very serious problems.

[Jaykus]

Hahaha. The decisions are reasonably grey. Not however if you can't understand the difference of fantasy magic and real world genetics, or the fact that someone may agree on the chantry/templar's stance (like Cullen) but not approve of individual templars' actions. Of course, if you want to get really philosphical you can debate the morality of those actions as well, but I 'm not bothering.

You know what they say about arguing on the internet. I 'm out of here.

[TheAwesomologist]

tomorrowstation wrote...

dragonfire100 wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

as long as I can kill Anders I'll side with whoever

Why would you want to kill anders? hes your best healer.

My best healer is Dr. H. Poultice and his 99 friends from the village of Merchantville, Thedas 90210.  They don't complain nearly as much as Anders. not a peep, even

The above statement is made of Truth and WIN. Anders is not the best healer, he just has Haste and Heroic Aura which you can get too or just wait til Bethany rejoins you (you made her a Warden right? Otherwise have fun waiting.)
I still haven't heard any Anders dialog in Legacy because dead men can't talk, although aperently Malcolm and Leandra can...

There's no winning this debate mostly because very little in Act 3 makes much sense it's so baddly written/executed. There is no option to stay neutral or to simply protect the citizens. For whatever reason everyone is unable or unwilling to exact justice on Anders. All mages are batshiat crazy except for the ones you can give equipment to. All Templars are ineffective sticks in the mud. It's a wonder the City of Kirkwall even opperates on a day to day basis with the sheer amount of stupidity and incompetence. 3 damn years pass from the death of the Viscount because everyone's affraid of Meredith even though Templars are very bad at their jobs.

We could have a better discussion if we had a better story to follow.

[HK-90210]

Wydi wrote...

There are multiple ways of gaining power. The Warden can become the greatest power in Ferelden as a rogue or warrior, but we'd never jail them for being fighters, right?
Of course, mages can be dangerous, but everyone can. The only difference is that mages are more tempted to misuse their power and/or side with demons.
Nobody chooses to be a mage, nobody has the chance to prove his or her innocence and trustworthiness. Blaming all mage for just being what they are is not right. And by today's Human Rights, it would be against the law.
Wynne isn't evil, Morrigan isn't really evil, Bethany isn't evil, Jowan isn't evil, Velanna isn't evil, the Warden might not be evil, even Anders isn't evil at all. 

Your right about Wynne and Bethany, and in many cases The Warden and Hawke, depending on player choice. Everyone else...it depends on your definition of evil.

Morrigan's motives are so unclear and convoluted, its hard to tell where she stands on morality. not entirely sure good or evil really apply to her.

Jowan is a fool, and seems harmles enough. But you can never be absolutely certian of his motivations, and he is capable of dong very dangeorus things if backed into a corner. Lest you forget, he did poison Arl Eamon and failed to instruct Connor properly on dealing with demons. This is a man who would not have passed his Harrowing.

Velanna is a person so full of anger and hate, she slaughtered innocent merchants who had nothing to do with her sister's dissapearance. If she had sat down and thought for a few moments, she might have considered alternatives to blindly massacering humans who had wives and children to look after, and were simply doing their jobs. And yet she never accepts responsibility for that mistake, nor offers any remorse. Sounds kind of evil to me.

And Anders... lets not get into that. Suffice to say, I believe the arguement on whether he is evil or not is up for debate.

[Willdaran]

My decision to side with the Templars was based on several factors: I did not want the Divine calling for an Exalted March on Kirkwall and/or the Free Marches, nor did I want to give Empress Celene an opening to use Kirkwall as a starting point for Orlesian expansionism. My Hawke sides with the Templars from a strictly political stance. The only way to power (Viscount) is through the Templars. The Free Marches have to unite in order to keep the Orlesians from dominating. So yes, I would accept a political alliance with Starkhaven. I find it interesting that the mages and templars are controlled by the Chantry, which was created by an Orlesian emperor. Heh. Maybe Hawke went to Orlais with Bodahn and Sandal to foment discord in Val Royeaux.

[Out to Lunch]

The problem with this debate is that regardless of what you see or hear about Templars and Mages throughout the game, it's irrelevant to the choice you are asked to make. You are not asked to choose a side in a war because no war exists at that time. You are not asked to take a stand on blood magic or Mages being free or the Chantry being right in keeping Mages imprisoned.

You are told that hundreds of innocent men, women and children are going to be murdered because of something one of your companions did.

You are then asked to choose:

Be a hero and sacrifice everything you have worked for, possibly your own life, to protect these innocent people.

OR

Put your own interests first and participate in the killing of these innocent people.

That's it.

From a game play stand point everyone should choose both sides at least once just to see the differences but from a storyline standpoint if you choose to side with the Templars you are no better than Meredith (or even the Arishok)-a brutal oppressor who is willing to murder innocent people, including children. That's never considered a good thing in the real world or fantasy world.

I don't really have a problem with people siding with the Templars. If you hate or fear magic, the idea of hundreds of Mages running around free is a serious issue. If you played a cowardly Hawke then going against Meredith might be too scary for your Hawke to handle. But at least admit the truth-.You helped murder children! It doesn't matter if in game play you didn't personally do it, the writers make it clear that children are in the circle and only a few Mages manage to escape with a Templar ending. The chances that all the children made it out are slim to none.

At the end of the day it's just a videogame so it doesn't really matter but it is cringe worthy when people say they didn't want to get involved, wanted an option to kill everyone or think siding with the Templars is' high-five awesome worthy' considering what that actually means within the story itself.

[Uzzy]

Out to Lunch wrote...
*snip*

You mean, those who sided with the Templars should feel bad about putting down an incredibly dangerous and rebellious element in the heart of the city after a terrorist attack had just destroyed the only chance of a peaceful solution?

The Circle was already corrupted, with a Blood Mage being First Enchanter. They should have been purged a while ago really. In short, Meredith was right.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Uzzy wrote...

Out to Lunch wrote...
*snip*

You mean, those who sided with the Templars should feel bad about putting down an incredibly dangerous and rebellious element in the heart of the city after a terrorist attack had just destroyed the only chance of a peaceful solution?

The Circle was already corrupted, with a Blood Mage being First Enchanter. They should have been purged a while ago really. In short, Meredith was right.

She was trying to annul them for Anders' actions. That sets a very dangerous precedent: all mages can be killed indiscriminately for the actions of one, even an unaffiliated one. Also, yes, many were blood mages, but there were those that were not - look at the crowds of mages you fight alongside in the mage ending who don't use one bit of blood magic. Also, for "rebellious elements," the Circle was quite willing to offer a surrender, as Orsino demonstrated, and only started rebelling once both Anders and Meredith forced it upon them. And in both endings, Orsino only uses blood magic for real once every single mage around him is killed and he snapped. Should he have? Considering what it led to, no. But he wasn't Uldred. Meredith could have taken the high road and executed Anders only, an action that the city would have supported, and which even Orsino would have supported. Instead, she did not and all hell broke loose.

Pushing people to rebellion and then complaining that they dare to rebel is insane.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 03 août 2011 - 06:52 .

[Huntress]

Uzzy wrote...

Out to Lunch wrote...
*snip*

You mean, those who sided with the Templars should feel bad about putting down an incredibly dangerous and rebellious element in the heart of the city after a terrorist attack had just destroyed the only chance of a peaceful solution?

The Circle was already corrupted, with a Blood Mage being First Enchanter. They should have been purged a while ago really. In short, Meredith was right.

So you are fine killing innocents mages that had nothing to do with  someone also actions?

The revellion started after act3 ends. either way right or wrong  it went at full speed AFTER act3 battle.

Oh and I believe X Character was working OR knew about The Resolutionists group.

Modifié par Huntress, 03 août 2011 - 06:58 .

[Uzzy]

Huntress wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

Out to Lunch wrote...
*snip*

You mean, those who sided with the Templars should feel bad about putting down an incredibly dangerous and rebellious element in the heart of the city after a terrorist attack had just destroyed the only chance of a peaceful solution?

The Circle was already corrupted, with a Blood Mage being First Enchanter. They should have been purged a while ago really. In short, Meredith was right.

So you are fine killing innocents mages that had nothing to do with  someone also actions?

The revellion started after act3 ends. either way right or wrong  it went at full speed AFTER act3 battle.

Oh and I believe X Character was working OR knew about The Resolutionists group.

I am fine with fighting to stop a rebellion. If that involves purging a group due to the massive danger they inherently pose, when they are in open rebellion and engaging in highly dangerous and illegal acts such as blood magic, then so be it. Especially when the leader of that group proves that he is a blood mage, hence the most inherently dangerous type of mage.

Meredith had called for the Right of Annulment twice before, obviously due to the presence of endless blood mages in the city, seemingly aided by the circle. The attack on the Chantry finally unleashed Meredith and the Templars and allowed them to do their job. It's just a shame that innocents had to die before they were allowed to do so.

Modifié par Uzzy, 03 août 2011 - 07:44 .

[jamesp81]

It's simple. The Templars' treatment of the mages is an affront to mankind's natural rights to life and liberty. Other concerns, including safety, are irrelevant. Safety and freedom are partially exclusive to one another anyway. So choose to live safely in chains, or choose the animating contest of freedom. If you do choose the chains, however, don't try to pretend you're better than a Tevinter slave trader, because you're not.

[nitefyre410]

Huntress wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

Out to Lunch wrote...
*snip*

You mean, those who sided with the Templars should feel bad about putting down an incredibly dangerous and rebellious element in the heart of the city after a terrorist attack had just destroyed the only chance of a peaceful solution?

The Circle was already corrupted, with a Blood Mage being First Enchanter. They should have been purged a while ago really. In short, Meredith was right.

So you are fine killing innocents mages that had nothing to do with  someone also actions?

The revellion started after act3 ends. either way right or wrong  it went at full speed AFTER act3 battle.

Oh and I believe X Character was working OR knew about The Resolutionists group.

you know I was thinking  the same  thing about X character as well -    Cause  X character  background and connections are perfect for the job.

[Ryzaki]

Hawke didn't murder any kids. The templars did fine on their own. Only BW protagonists that can kill a kid was Revan and the warden. Not to mention these kids can turn into abominations and cause as much damage as their adult counterparts. So no Hawke's not so ebul child murderer for siding with the templars. He/she can choose to be one (I assume) but he/she can also go in their with the intention of only fighting when he/she has to and to save as many lives as possible. Stop trying to force everyone to RP the way you do. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 août 2011 - 10:26 .

[Sepewrath]

Rifneno wrote...
I can see that point of view. It's not their fault and I sympathize with them, but the Kirkwall mages are a huge danger. If you take out the templars, you do have a bunch of crazed mages running amok. It's comparable to bombing the hell out of a town with some engineered armageddon virus spreading in it. It's horrible, but understandable. What I spit on is the notion of sparing the fiends that purposely infected that town for giggles.

Well you don't need to take out the Templar's, but they should serve solely as a police force, not prison guards and at a whim, executioners. That last part is probably the worst, the fact that one person has the power to pass judgement on hundreds whenever they feel like it. Its like someone mentioned X-Men, a powerful mutant going crazy could not be stopped by a regular police force. So having things like Sentinels for those situations make sense, but you cant blanket the actions of the few over everyone and have Sentinels putting people in cages.

[Rifneno]

Uzzy wrote...

You mean, those who sided with the Templars should feel bad about putting down an incredibly dangerous and rebellious element in the heart of the city after a terrorist attack had just destroyed the only chance of a peaceful solution?

The Circle was already corrupted, with a Blood Mage being First Enchanter. They should have been purged a while ago really. In short, Meredith was right.

Oh, thanks.  Now I don't have to turn on FOX News for my RDA of lies and twisted half-truths.

[Sajuro]

Really the first time the only reason my Hawke sided with the mages was because of her relationships with Merrill,Anders,and Bethany

[Rifneno]

Ryzaki wrote...

Hawke didn't murder any kids. The templars did fine on their own.

It's hard to tell you're actually defending the templars.  And I thank you for that.

Sepewrath wrote...

Well you don't need to take out the Templar's, but they should serve solely as a police force, not prison guards and at a whim, executioners. That last part is probably the worst, the fact that one person has the power to pass judgement on hundreds whenever they feel like it. Its like someone mentioned X-Men, a powerful mutant going crazy could not be stopped by a regular police force. So having things like Sentinels for those situations make sense, but you cant blanket the actions of the few over everyone and have Sentinels putting people in cages.

I'm not familiar with X-Men.  But I don't mean that there shouldn't be some policing of mages.  Certainly there needs to be.  I just say that the Chantry goes way too far.  And in the case of Kirkwall's Order...  well, Nickelback's "Burn It To the Ground" finally has a reason to exist.

[Macropodmum]

Uzzy wrote...

I am fine with fighting to stop a rebellion. If that involves purging a group due to the massive danger they inherently pose,

And an insane dictator poses no threat?

Uzzy wrote...

Meredith had called for the Right of Annulment twice before, obviously due to the presence of endless blood mages in the city, seemingly aided by the circle. The attack on the Chantry finally unleashed Meredith and the Templars and allowed them to do their job. It's just a shame that innocents had to die before they were allowed to do so. 

She called for the rite previously because she squeezed the mages far too tight and they slipped out of her grasp, leaving her not in control.  As for the attack on the chantry, the circle was not responsible, even Sebastian got it right when he said "Why are we discussing RoA when the culprit is standing right here?"  And how about the innocent  mages who were brutalised under Merediths command?

Modifié par Macropodmum, 04 août 2011 - 05:20 .

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...

Hawke didn't murder any kids. The templars did fine on their own. Only BW protagonists that can kill a kid was Revan and the warden. Not to mention these kids can turn into abominations and cause as much damage as their adult counterparts. So no Hawke's not so ebul child murderer for siding with the templars. He/she can choose to be one (I assume) but he/she can also go in their with the intention of only fighting when he/she has to and to save as many lives as possible. Stop trying to force everyone to RP the way you do. 

Saving which lives? 

Not the mages, because the RoA is going to kill them all.  That the devs wimped out on their own story just provides a meta-gaming after the fact escape.  David Gaider said that even if a mage somehow managed to survive the RoA they'd be Tranquiled.

The townsfolk?  You could save more of them by putting Hawke and the Templars to work scouring the city for rioters and thugs.  I just don't get how killing the mages was going to help the city.  A calm, sane Knight Commander (as in, not Meredith) would have told the mages to get back to their quarters and lock themselves in against the threat from outside.  Then she'd have sent a force of Templars into the city to help keep order.

There was no mage rebellion prior to the RoA.  There weren't abominations in the streets until Meredith sent her death squad marching through the Gallows.  Forcing the mages to fight for their lives didn't make anything safer.

The game I wanted to play would have let my Hawke challenge Meredith on the spot and lop the lunatic's head clean off before she could make a tense situation into a war.

Meredith and her crazy making sword caused far more damange than she prevented.