89415 réponses à ce sujet

[Chiantirose1982]

Xilizhra wrote...

I know that usually everyone gets executed or made Tranquil, my point is that Cullen knows very well that Mages prefer death to being made Tranquil. Why in the hell would he risk pissing off his superior when he was just going to lobotomize them a couple hours later anyway? Can I see the Mages being punished in some other way later on, yeah maybe something like solitary confinement for a while. He said the Circle isn't beyond saving, he knew this wasn't right, that's why he stepped up at the end, it sure took him a while but he did. So he did all this and then goes "I was just kidding, you'll be Tranquil by tomorrow morning, trololol." Really? I don't know, doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my head.

The templars have reinforcements coming; I doubt Cullen would maintain control of the Circle. Additionally, he himself considers Tranquility to be better than death.

Yes, but as I said he knows that the Mages feel different then he does. I don't see him as a dishonest man, if he knew that he would make them Tranquil then he would tell them so. Why would he give them hope and let them think they're safe, just to betray them later? If the reinforcement Templars later on take the control away from him and make those Mages Tranquil then you can hardly lay all the blame by his feet, he did what he could for them.

Even as a Mage supporter you kind of have to see that this makes no sense, at least as Cullen has been portrayed so far. He might have been agressive and had some hate for Mages, but he never was dishonest about it. So why would he start now? 

[Xilizhra]

Chiantirose1982 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I know that usually everyone gets executed or made Tranquil, my point is that Cullen knows very well that Mages prefer death to being made Tranquil. Why in the hell would he risk pissing off his superior when he was just going to lobotomize them a couple hours later anyway? Can I see the Mages being punished in some other way later on, yeah maybe something like solitary confinement for a while. He said the Circle isn't beyond saving, he knew this wasn't right, that's why he stepped up at the end, it sure took him a while but he did. So he did all this and then goes "I was just kidding, you'll be Tranquil by tomorrow morning, trololol." Really? I don't know, doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my head.

The templars have reinforcements coming; I doubt Cullen would maintain control of the Circle. Additionally, he himself considers Tranquility to be better than death.

Yes, but as I said he knows that the Mages feel different then he does. I don't see him as a dishonest man, if he knew that he would make them Tranquil then he would tell them so. Why would he give them hope and let them think they're safe, just to betray them later? If the reinforcement Templars later on take the control away from him and make those Mages Tranquil then you can hardly lay all the blame by his feet, he did what he could for them.

Even as a Mage supporter you kind of have to see that this makes no sense, at least as Cullen has been portrayed so far. He might have been agressive and had some hate for Mages, but he never was dishonest about it. So why would he start now? 

Well... firstly, he was willing to slaughter en masse everyone who was only trying to defend themselves from Meredith. Second, it's entirely possible that he was lying to himself, something that I imagine he had to do a lot of under Meredith, in regards to the coming of more templars. And I will blame him wholeheartedly for fighting in the Annulment and only backing out when it came to Hawke.

[R2s Muse]

Xilizhra wrote...

My question is....how many Templar factions will there be? 3? We got the Chantry Loyalist, the Lambert followers, and the Red Templars? Does that sound right?

Unless Lambert's followers are the Red ones.

Those are the factions I can think of. I can't help but think of the Red Templars as a fringe element, but who knows. Of those three groups, the Lambert one probably kept the "Templar Order" moniker and trademark rights in the divorce, so based on that, I question why the name would change to be the Red Templars. Like I've also said before, the DA:I concept art of the templars doesn't seem very Red Templar-y. But that's slim reasoning.

[Xilizhra]

R2s Muse wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

My question is....how many Templar factions will there be? 3? We got the Chantry Loyalist, the Lambert followers, and the Red Templars? Does that sound right?

Unless Lambert's followers are the Red ones.

Those are the factions I can think of. I can't help but think of the Red Templars as a fringe element, but who knows. Of those three groups, the Lambert one probably kept the "Templar Order" moniker and trademark rights in the divorce, so based on that, I question why the name would change to be the Red Templars. Like I've also said before, the DA:I concept art of the templars doesn't seem very Red Templar-y. But that's slim reasoning.

Red Templars vs. Chantry templars, perhaps. If the Order wound up sundering following Lambert's death.

[meanieweenie]

Xilizhra wrote...

R2s Muse wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

My question is....how many Templar factions will there be? 3? We got the Chantry Loyalist, the Lambert followers, and the Red Templars? Does that sound right?

Unless Lambert's followers are the Red ones.

Those are the factions I can think of. I can't help but think of the Red Templars as a fringe element, but who knows. Of those three groups, the Lambert one probably kept the "Templar Order" moniker and trademark rights in the divorce, so based on that, I question why the name would change to be the Red Templars. Like I've also said before, the DA:I concept art of the templars doesn't seem very Red Templar-y. But that's slim reasoning.

Red Templars vs. Chantry templars, perhaps. If the Order wound up sundering following Lambert's death.

I can't help but wonder, at this point, how much of the game will we spend trying to figure out who's side everyone is really on? !

[Xilizhra]

meanieweenie wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

R2s Muse wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

My question is....how many Templar factions will there be? 3? We got the Chantry Loyalist, the Lambert followers, and the Red Templars? Does that sound right?

Unless Lambert's followers are the Red ones.

Those are the factions I can think of. I can't help but think of the Red Templars as a fringe element, but who knows. Of those three groups, the Lambert one probably kept the "Templar Order" moniker and trademark rights in the divorce, so based on that, I question why the name would change to be the Red Templars. Like I've also said before, the DA:I concept art of the templars doesn't seem very Red Templar-y. But that's slim reasoning.

Red Templars vs. Chantry templars, perhaps. If the Order wound up sundering following Lambert's death.

I can't help but wonder, at this point, how much of the game will we spend trying to figure out who's side everyone is really on? !

Very possibly a lot. It should prove interesting.

[R2s Muse]

Xilizhra wrote...

Chiantirose1982 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I know that usually everyone gets executed or made Tranquil, my point is that Cullen knows very well that Mages prefer death to being made Tranquil. Why in the hell would he risk pissing off his superior when he was just going to lobotomize them a couple hours later anyway? Can I see the Mages being punished in some other way later on, yeah maybe something like solitary confinement for a while. He said the Circle isn't beyond saving, he knew this wasn't right, that's why he stepped up at the end, it sure took him a while but he did. So he did all this and then goes "I was just kidding, you'll be Tranquil by tomorrow morning, trololol." Really? I don't know, doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my head.

The templars have reinforcements coming; I doubt Cullen would maintain control of the Circle. Additionally, he himself considers Tranquility to be better than death.

Yes, but as I said he knows that the Mages feel different then he does. I don't see him as a dishonest man, if he knew that he would make them Tranquil then he would tell them so. Why would he give them hope and let them think they're safe, just to betray them later? If the reinforcement Templars later on take the control away from him and make those Mages Tranquil then you can hardly lay all the blame by his feet, he did what he could for them.

Even as a Mage supporter you kind of have to see that this makes no sense, at least as Cullen has been portrayed so far. He might have been agressive and had some hate for Mages, but he never was dishonest about it. So why would he start now? 

Well... firstly, he was willing to slaughter en masse everyone who was only trying to defend themselves from Meredith. Second, it's entirely possible that he was lying to himself, something that I imagine he had to do a lot of under Meredith, in regards to the coming of more templars. And I will blame him wholeheartedly for fighting in the Annulment and only backing out when it came to Hawke.

I think for Cullen's motivations all we really have to go on is what he says, and when the three mages surrender, he seems to think that they could "do the same here" in Kirkwall as was done in Ferelden, namely save some of the mages. If he's fine with the mages all being killed or tranquilized, why stand up and say anything at all? Now, he might not have been thinking about the fact that more templars would show up and potentially overrule him, but given how much he risked by speaking up, I don't think there's much evidence to think he's lying in that situation.

Moreover, according to DG, in this situation Cullen is thinking that the Divine would probably agree with him in thinking that the Right of Annulment was unjustified (emphasis mine).

Just because something is legal does not necessarily make it right or moral. I suspect what Cullen would have argued, given the chance, was that the Divine would never have agreed to the Rite of Annulment in this case. Anyone, even a Grand Cleric, would still be responsible for their actions in calling such a desperate measure after the fact.

Modifié par R2s Muse, 12 novembre 2013 - 04:35 .

[R2s Muse]

Xilizhra wrote...

meanieweenie wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

R2s Muse wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

My question is....how many Templar factions will there be? 3? We got the Chantry Loyalist, the Lambert followers, and the Red Templars? Does that sound right?

Unless Lambert's followers are the Red ones.

Those are the factions I can think of. I can't help but think of the Red Templars as a fringe element, but who knows. Of those three groups, the Lambert one probably kept the "Templar Order" moniker and trademark rights in the divorce, so based on that, I question why the name would change to be the Red Templars. Like I've also said before, the DA:I concept art of the templars doesn't seem very Red Templar-y. But that's slim reasoning.

Red Templars vs. Chantry templars, perhaps. If the Order wound up sundering following Lambert's death.

I can't help but wonder, at this point, how much of the game will we spend trying to figure out who's side everyone is really on? !

Very possibly a lot. It should prove interesting.

LOL Agree!  That could actually be rather fun. Betrayals for all!

[Potato Cat]

Xilizhra wrote...
Red Templars vs. Chantry templars, perhaps. If the Order wound up sundering following Lambert's death.

Slightly off the topic of the slight off topic, one of my biggest hopes for the rebel Templars is that they don't start off Red, and it's our choices, like favouring mages and taking control of the lyrium supplies, that actually push them to use red lyrium, instead of the 'good' stuff. It'd be better than just Cerberus ARE your enemy, and cutting off all chances of sympathy for their situation.

[R2s Muse]

Elfman wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Red Templars vs. Chantry templars, perhaps. If the Order wound up sundering following Lambert's death.

Slightly off the topic of the slight off topic, one of my biggest hopes for the rebel Templars is that they don't start off Red, and it's our choices, like favouring mages and taking control of the lyrium supplies, that actually push them to use red lyrium, instead of the 'good' stuff. It'd be better than just Cerberus ARE your enemy, and cutting off all chances of sympathy for their situation.

That would be cool! Like, perhaps Cullen's Questioning Beliefs quest is about trying to save the Red Templars from themselves, or one particular templar perhaps.

Modifié par R2s Muse, 12 novembre 2013 - 04:37 .

[Xilizhra]

I think for Cullen's motivations all we really have to go on is what he says, and when the three mages surrender, he seems to think that they could "do the same here" in Kirkwall as was done in Ferelden, namely save some of the mages. If he's fine with the mages all being killed or tranquilized, why stand up and say anything at all? Now, he might not have been thinking about the fact that more templars would show up and potentially overrule him, but given how much he risked by speaking up, I don't think there's much evidence to think he's lying in that situation.

But what was done in Ferelden, at least in my playthrough, was to kill no mages at all unless they were actively hostile when I only showed up to fight demons. This is not what Cullen is doing. Maybe he's truthful, but it doesn't help him at all.

Slightly off the topic of the slight off topic, one of my biggest hopes for the rebel Templars is that they don't start off Red, and it's our choices, like favouring mages and taking control of the lyrium supplies, that actually push them to use red lyrium, instead of the 'good' stuff. It'd be better than just Cerberus ARE your enemy, and cutting off all chances of sympathy for their situation.

I liked how Cerberus was done well enough, and I admit that I hope it repeats.

[R2s Muse]

Xilizhra wrote...

I think for Cullen's motivations all we really have to go on is what he says, and when the three mages surrender, he seems to think that they could "do the same here" in Kirkwall as was done in Ferelden, namely save some of the mages. If he's fine with the mages all being killed or tranquilized, why stand up and say anything at all? Now, he might not have been thinking about the fact that more templars would show up and potentially overrule him, but given how much he risked by speaking up, I don't think there's much evidence to think he's lying in that situation.

But what was done in Ferelden, at least in my playthrough, was to kill no mages at all unless they were actively hostile when I only showed up to fight demons. This is not what Cullen is doing. Maybe he's truthful, but it doesn't help him at all.

Like I've said before, I'm sure Cullen killed some mages during the Last Straw, so it's not like he has no blood on his hands. So, the argument could be made that it's too little too late.

[begin conspiracy theory] It also could be that Cullen has a twin running around behind his back killing mages and making him look bad... That mysterious curly head DOES show up at the Gallows before he arrives with Meredith.



...and then show up from a different direction after he's ostensibly been battling Meredith at your side.





[/ end conspiracy theory]

Modifié par R2s Muse, 12 novembre 2013 - 04:45 .

[Potato Cat]

Xilizhra wrote...
I liked how Cerberus was done well enough, and I admit that I hope it repeats.

I think my problem was that Cerberus was just totally indoctrinated at the start of ME3, so their viewpoint of humanity first was just automatically 'wrong', which was just so annoying for me, especially since a Renegade Shep is sort of humanity first in 1 and 2. So when I came to continue my Shepard in ME3, she was doing more or less the same thing a Paragon Shep would have done, but while being a bit of a dick about it at the same time.

And I think it would be even worse in DA, because it's, from what we know, something they've entered into willingly. And it's just like, "Oh come on! Don't you know what it did to Meredith?!" and "You're the bloody majority! Just charge the bloody loyalists and take their nicer lyrium if you need it!". But if we force them into that corner, it adds weight and second thoughts to someone who's just siding with the mages because it's the 'moral' choice, rather than making them think, but at the same time, not taking the easy way out and just painting the mages as total psychos who don't care about anyone but themselves.

[Potato Cat]

Why do all my rogues have that same ponytail? That's my conspiracy. Bioware using subliminal messaging to make me pick that hair for rogues!

[Xilizhra]

And I think it would be even worse in DA, because it's, from what we know, something they've entered into willingly. And it's just like, "Oh come on! Don't you know what it did to Meredith?!" and "You're the bloody majority! Just charge the bloody loyalists and take their nicer lyrium if you need it!". But if we force them into that corner, it adds weight and second thoughts to someone who's just siding with the mages because it's the 'moral' choice, rather than making them think, but at the same time, not taking the easy way out and just painting the mages as total psychos who don't care about anyone but themselves.

It seems logical, frankly. If the Chantry's intact enough to still control the lyrium trade, the renegades won't be able to get in themselves, and trying to attack the Chantry full-on while ignoring the mages probably wouldn't go well, especially as for any long-term solution, they'd need to take over the whole Chantry agtain and rule it by force.

[Dreamlover2012]

This has nothing to do with Dragon Age or Cullen but thought it was funny and wanted to share.

“@DuncanScott19 @ellisgreg Greg you're a uneducated **** that can't back up own statements with facts. Bloody hypocrite”

Greg Ellis ‏@ellisgreg 28 Oct
It's "an" not "a"

[Dreamlover2012]

Also, does anyone happen to have a link for that Mike Laidlaw Tweet where he answered a fan question about Mage Qunari? I cant find it anywhere >.<

[R2s Muse]

Dreamlover2012 wrote...

This has nothing to do with Dragon Age or Cullen but thought it was funny and wanted to share.

“@DuncanScott19 @ellisgreg Greg you're a uneducated **** that can't back up own statements with facts. Bloody hypocrite”

Greg Ellis ‏@ellisgreg 28 Oct
It's "an" not "a"

LOL Love him!

[R2s Muse]

Dreamlover2012 wrote...

Also, does anyone happen to have a link for that Mike Laidlaw Tweet where he answered a fan question about Mage Qunari? I cant find it anywhere >.<

http://r2smuse.tumbl...ost/59973536351

[Dreamlover2012]

R2s Muse wrote...

Dreamlover2012 wrote...

Also, does anyone happen to have a link for that Mike Laidlaw Tweet where he answered a fan question about Mage Qunari? I cant find it anywhere >.<

http://r2smuse.tumbl...ost/59973536351

Thank you!

[R2s Muse]

Dreamlover2012 wrote...

R2s Muse wrote...

Dreamlover2012 wrote...

Also, does anyone happen to have a link for that Mike Laidlaw Tweet where he answered a fan question about Mage Qunari? I cant find it anywhere >.<

http://r2smuse.tumbl...ost/59973536351

Thank you!

my pleasure! Educating the masses?

[LolaLei]

Xilizhra wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

I wonder if he'll be battle/war weary? I would be if I'd found myself stuck in the middle of 2 (soon to be 3) massive events.

Probably. If he's not a companion, that might be why.

I reckon you could be spot on there.

[LolaLei]

R2s Muse wrote...

Dreamlover2012 wrote...

This has nothing to do with Dragon Age or Cullen but thought it was funny and wanted to share.

“@DuncanScott19 @ellisgreg Greg you're a uneducated **** that can't back up own statements with facts. Bloody hypocrite”

Greg Ellis ‏@ellisgreg 28 Oct
It's "an" not "a"

LOL Love him!

LOL! He's been trolling and being a grammar **** towards that Twitter user for weeks now, I think he's enjoying it!

[Dreamlover2012]

LolaLei wrote...

R2s Muse wrote...

Dreamlover2012 wrote...

This has nothing to do with Dragon Age or Cullen but thought it was funny and wanted to share.

“@DuncanScott19 @ellisgreg Greg you're a uneducated **** that can't back up own statements with facts. Bloody hypocrite”

Greg Ellis ‏@ellisgreg 28 Oct
It's "an" not "a"

LOL Love him!

LOL! He's been trolling and being a grammar **** towards that Twitter user for weeks now, I think he's enjoying it!

Hilarious!

[Chiantirose1982]

 
This is my last post on this, it's late and I'm about to watch Sharknado because ..... it's a tornado with sharks in it and also for science. 

I never tried to make Cullen look innocent, he was with Meredith in the Annulment and went along with it, that was a bad move. We don't know what went on in the Circle before the Annulment, but there is the codex entry that speaks of a high percentage of Blood mages. 

Why did Meredith want to search the tower? Did she have any evidence to support her claim that Orsino was harboring or at the very least enabling Blood mages? Why did Orsino not just let her search the damn tower if he had nothing to hide? That just made him more suspicious and made Meredith even more paranoid.

Hawke wasn't a Circle Mage, so Meredith wanting to kill her/him, might have opened Cullen's eyes to how crazy and paranoid she really was. Don't you think that some people can be so brainwashed, naive and in Cullens case maybe even still angry, that they go along with many things and something drastic has to happen before they realize "Damn, that ain't right." I agree that it took too long for him to realize that, but then again we don't know what went on in that Circle all this time.

I have countless playthroughs of DA:2 and the majority of them are pro mage Hawke, but I also have a couple pro templar and those are not just because I like Cullen, but because I can see Merediths point.  The Mages are not innocent in all of this as well as the Templars.