1253 réponses à ce sujet

[Follow Me on Twitter]

An exhalted march on Kirkwall would not just kill the mages they would kill everyone in the city to purge any "evil". There was no way to "win" innocents were going to die. Im not talking about the civiians that wanted the mages killed im talking about people living in Kirkwall that had no part in any of it.

Modifié par Follow Me on Twitter, 31 août 2011 - 03:33 .

[IanPolaris]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

An exhalted march on Kirkwall would not just kill the mages they would kill everyone in the city to purge any "evil". There was no way to "win" innocents were going to die. Im not talking about the civiians that wanted the mages killed im talking about people leaving in Kirkwall that had no part in any of it.

You can't control what the battle Divine will do in Val Royeaux, so that doesn't count.  You should side with Meredith and she STILL might call an Exalted March.

You can only control your own actions, and your own moral rectitude and that means NOT punishing those that are obviously not-guilty (if not outright innocent) for something someone else is OBVIOUSLY guilty of, and especially not in the face of a mob.  You do and you lose control of the mob pretty much forever.

-Polaris

Edit:  The point is that if the Divine wants to kill innocents anyway, that's HER call.  That does not count in the moral caculus since it's moral decision you can not control and can not predict with certainty.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 31 août 2011 - 03:35 .

[LobselVith8]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Hell, Wynne suggests there's a lot of kids already that don't make it to the Circle and that the Circle exists to protect the mages as much as the normal people. >.> Puts things more into perspective.

Considering Wynne is talking about Andrastian society here, where mages are seen as "cursed" (as many Andrastians in both Origins and Dragon Age 2 verbally state), that doesn't say much. The fact that the Chantry of Andraste created the social views towards mages that lead to the deaths of innocent mages in the examples provided by Wynne doesn't really speak highly as an argument in favor of the Chantry controlled Circles.

In fact, non-Andrastian societies treat mages differently. Avvar and Chasind society have free mages, where Gaider has stated mages "aren't controlled." Like the Dalish clans, who also have free mages, and even the seers and witches in the Kingdom of Rivain. Clearly, it isn't simply an issue of people hating mages for having magical ability if different soceties treat mages differently. (In addition, Gaider did state these societies deal with abominations when they arise, which is the same claim made by Merrill when Hawke asks her about possessed elven mages).

Dave of Canada wrote...

Doesn't Orsino also think Meredith was involved in the conspiracy and think you're lying if you say she didn't? Didn't side with him, can't say anything about it.

First Enchanter Orsino says that's what he originally thought was going on when he asked for Hawke's assistance in dealing with this clandestine group. He laments putting a stop to Ser Thrask's efforts to depose Meredith when Hawke reveals the truth of the situation.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

I do not want to touch the genocide subject it is way too touchy.

Im just going to look at the end game choice as this " You can kill these innocent people or you can do this and the repercussions would be more innocents dying" Innocents were going to be killed regardless of choice. Again all you can do at that point is try to damage control.

Yes, I understand that, and I will not go into the genocide arguement, either. or even the moral ones. Because in a more sane scenario, there might be some sort of convincing moral greyness arguement. The Broken Circle quest in origins was actually a case where I felt an arguement for annulment was not only justified, but portrayed in a reasonable way. Gregoire was not a barking mad zealot, and he called annulment because it the only option he had left.  And that Gregoire was even haunted and destroyed by what he had to do, as the epilogue slides show. Ultimately, that scenario showed what I considered morally grey quite nicely, as did the Connor scenario.

But in Act 3, it was a completely different scenario. I didn't feel I was saving anyone, or anything remotely resembling damage control. Nor did I see how in any sane scenario, slaughtering the mages would be an effective or reasonable way to control anything. It would have been as effective "damage control" as treating a person with a gaping, open chest wound, complete with gurgling, wheezing, and innards bulging out, by placing a Band-Aid on it. In otherwards, pointless and even laughable. The best thing one could do for the poor, unfortunate soul in this situation would be to put him out of his misery, if one did not have the means to get him to a doctor or emergency clinic.

And by Act 3, the means to heal anything was pretty much gone. The entire system failed, there was no saving it. So I found it better to give it a quick death rather than maintain an illusion of anything being left to salvage.

[Wulfram]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

An exhalted march on Kirkwall would not just kill the mages they would kill everyone in the city to purge any "evil".

Why do you say that?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

An exhalted march on Kirkwall would not just kill the mages they would kill everyone in the city to purge any "evil". There was no way to "win" innocents were going to die. Im not talking about the civiians that wanted the mages killed im talking about people living in Kirkwall that had no part in any of it.

Given the Chantry's tendancy to resort to exlated marches as a means of dealing with every problem they can't handle with plattitudes or dogma, I'd find the prospect of an Exalted March even more reason not to give in. As well as something that could be dealt with or prepared for. The Chantry would need some time to gather the necessary forces and organize the March. Plus, there's always the possibility the Chantry could be forced to back down through various ways.

[Follow Me on Twitter]

Hawke still had some control of the situation even if Meredith wanted them all dead. When you go in you can choose to execute or spare mages and the rest of the templars follow his order.

Going into that situation did not necessarily mean you were going to go in and butcher everyone.

[IanPolaris]

I also note (which is why I liked the Fereladan circle case) that Gregoire genuinely and reasonably thinks there is no way any mage could survive the hell that lies beyond the barricaded door...but he offers a way out if he's wrong. I agree, with Skadi, Gregoire knows what Annulment is morally, but will do it to maintain a quarantine in a situation that is clearly threatening to get out of control. Again, a grey area potentially.

It probably was too easy to side with Wynne and the mages when Wynne gave you information that Gregoire didn't have. It might have been better to have explicitly make it clear that abominations really could "hide" as normal mages (i.e. rescue a mage just to have it turn on you when you least expect it....showing not telling)...but otherwise the Fereldan tower was well down with reasonable human characters on both sides. Unlike DA2 and esp Act III of DA2.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

Hawke still had some control of the situation even if Meredith wanted them all dead. When you go in you can choose to execute or spare mages and the rest of the templars follow his order.

Going into that situation did not necessarily mean you were going to go in and butcher everyone.

When you make the decision to back Meredith, you have NO way of knowing that you can save anymages and per DG, you probably don't (they are made tranquil).  What matters is the information available to you when you make the moral choice, and that choice is to kill an entire class of people that are clearly innocent on the say-so of a clear madwoman.

-Polaris

Edit:  Yes it does mean you are compelled to butcher everyone.  Both the codex entry and Knight Captain Cullen himself tell you that explicitly.  No circle mage is allowed to survive a right of annument.  Frankly that scene with the surrendering mages is IMHO an example of more bioware "cheating" to make the templars more palatable.  You are not supposed to take prisoners (or they have to be killed later) during a right.  The right is very explicit about this.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 31 août 2011 - 03:55 .

[LobselVith8]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

I do not want to touch the genocide subject it is way too touchy.

Im just going to look at the end game choice as this " You can kill these innocent people or you can do this and the repercussions would be more innocents dying" Innocents were going to be killed regardless of choice. Again all you can do at that point is try to damage control.

The problem is, the storyline towards the end of Act III ("The Last Straw") poses the question by Knight-Commander Meredith (who repeats her argument twice for Hawke) as (to paraphrase) "Kill the entire Circle of Kirkwall because a hypothetical mob will demand their deaths." Meredith's argument doesn't really persuade me when we're discussing the lives of hundreds of men, women, and children.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

Hawke still had some control of the situation even if Meredith wanted them all dead. When you go in you can choose to execute or spare mages and the rest of the templars follow his order.

Going into that situation did not necessarily mean you were going to go in and butcher everyone.

The mages you "spare" are more than likely going to get tranquilled, which is considered by many a fate worse than death. So I'm not changing anything, just making sure the annulment is carried out a little less violently. It's still the same thing.

And if Hawke had any meaningful control ofthe situation, he could have told Meredith to back off, and coerced Orsino into allowing her to search the tower. Hawke can't. Because, well, Hawke doesn't have any control over the situation. he can only control which idiots he decides to help.

[IanPolaris]

And if Hawke had any meaningful control ofthe situation, he could have told Meredith to back off, and coerced Orsino into allowing her to search the tower. Hawke can't. Because, well, Hawke doesn't have any control over the situation. he can only control which idiots he decides to help.

As usual.

I desperately wanted an option to use my "authority" as Champion of Kirkwall and declare martial law right then and there.  I am sure that Aveline and the Guard would go along with it.

-Polaris

[Follow Me on Twitter]

www.youtube.com/watch 

And if you do this quest you gain an understanding of why its so dangerous to help the mages out.

Hawke may not have had absolute control over it but Merediths Knight Commander took Hawkes orders over Merediths orders which means that it was possible to end it with alot less bloodshed then meredith wanted.

Modifié par Follow Me on Twitter, 31 août 2011 - 04:05 .

[Rifneno]

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...

Well for that rumor to be seen as remotely possible would mean the Arishok didn't manage to return the book safely wouldn't it?[/quote]

Which is why I promote the theory that Varric wasn't given that line because they wanted to set up Isabela returning in a future game but rather as setting up a reason the Arishok never makes it back to Par Vollen no matter what and hence why the Qunari aren't in a position to take advantage of the chaos in Thedas from the mage war.

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Most of the pro-mages are also dead set on viewing the mages as nothing but victims, and then won't ever admit to the dangers that mages present. Same with the pro-Circle/Templars. We are often so dead set on focusing on the dangers mages present, that we don't... I don't even know how to end that sentence... There is probably something we don't look at...[/quote]

C-Can I get a temperature check in Hell, someone?

Though I don't think most of us are blind to the dangers mages present. I'm certainly not. They definitely need a special policing force. The Chantry's system, however, takes it WAY too far and causes more problems than it solves.

[quote]The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Vayne Solidor is one of my favorite antagonists.[/quote]

Why? He was just your average power-hungry douche. Cid and Venat were mere interesting with their "history should be in mankind's hands" theology but I was ready to throw up after ten billionth horse reins metaphor. And if they actually made SOME effort to prove that man deserves that power, they'd be the type of sympathetic antagonists that are more memorable. Instead, what do they do? Bomb the **** out of a city full of refugees and peaceful priests (peaceful, unlike the Chantry) for... uhhh... I forget, was it just for the lulz or what? Then again, I've never found a Final Fantasy antagonist very interesting or complex. The most popular is obviously Sephiroth, but Kefka is a close second. That... I don't even BEGIN to understand. Kefka was the most boring, one-dimensional, cardboard cutout villain EVER. His entire backstory consisted of one line from an anonymous townsperson in Vector. Magitech experiments made him nuts. That's why he's so deranged, that's why he lights people on fire for the lulz, that's why he dresses like a gay rodeo clown, that's why EVERYTHING.

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...

You know... Connor as an abomination wasn't really that powerful. I doubt he could have done those village-demolishing scenarios personally, anyway; the real threat was that it could summon a lot more demons to animate the corpse army (though where so many undead came from when Andrastians burn their dead, I really can't say). The only abominations we've seen to match the Chantry's Codex propaganda in terms of personal power are, I believe, Uldred and Marethari. Few demons are that powerful, and it stands to reason that few abominations are as well.[/quote]

Depending upon when the Baroness became possessed, she might be counted. And I'd definitely say she was the most evil mage (possibly the most evil person period) we've seen in Dragon Age thus far. Which is ironic since she's a tuned down version of a real life serial killer. But hey, we best all remember that these atrocities only come from magic. *cough*

[quote]phaonica wrote...

And what amount of relating to the opposing side of this argument (that sometimes maybe it *is* understandable to slaughter said group of people) is going to change the pro-mage player's mind? For the pro mage players out there, is there any possible way you could ever see yourself questioning this fundamental stance?[/quote]

Certainly. Mass Effect has done a few similar scenarios that really had me questioning. I generally save the innocents but I completely understand doing the opposite. For instance the choice at the end of Bring Down the Sky. That's a toughie. This one is asinine though. You're asked to kill a large group of prisoners for something someone else did. It doesn't get much more black and white than that.

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...

Though in that scenario the blood mages are the ones who forced the demons inside.
Animals can be possessed without help though apparently. Given Mr. Wiggums and the cat from Honnealth. Though that was probably due to a thin veil.[/quote]

Was that an abomination? I always assumed that she was just shapeshifting into the form of a cat.

I still lol at the dialogue though. "What are you?" "A cat." "Right. What are you really?" "I'm a cat. Really."

[quote]phaonica wrote...

However, I still wonder if any amount of showing the dangers posed by mages would ever be enough to sufficiently justify mage internment, particularly to currently pro mage players.[/quote]

Oh, you meant locking them up, not killing the few to save the many? Well then it depends upon the type of internment. Forcing them to learn how to control their powers and fend off demons? Certainly. Permanent imprisonment? No. Not just because it's unethical, but because it doesn't work. It just pokes the bear with a sharp stick. Many of them who wouldn't normally be evil will turn to evil trying to fight for their freedom. Even Uldred and Connor were a result of that.

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

Doesn't Orsino also think Meredith was involved in the conspiracy and think you're lying if you say she didn't? Didn't side with him, can't say anything about it.[/quote]

No. The closest he says is with a sigh, "I was half convinced that Meredith had set the whole thing up just to get me to implicate myself." Or something close to that, working from memory but I'm positive of the jist of it. I guess it might vary depending on how Hawke has sided in previous mage-templar quests, I can't say as I never take the templar side.

[quote]Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

No, she refused the idea years earlier before she decided to go batsh*t. But it didn't mean she wasn't already being harsh and overbearing, because in act 1 even Cullen tells you alot of people hate the templars because of Meredith.[/quote]

It's a matter of interpretation of course, but I always believed she said no because there was no point in saying yes. That kind of decision could only be made by the Divine herself. It's too huge and too contradictory to existing Chantry belief and law. Tranquiling some random mages illegally is one thing, she can sweep that under the rug, but every mage in the country? I doubt even Elthina would've stood for that. Even Sebastian

[quote]PuppyFlavour wrote...

If you look at the witch-huntings back then, the Chantry is rather tame in comparison to its real-life equivalent.[/quote]

There's a difference: magic is real in Thedas. Magic in real life was always the product of paranoid delusions and always bad. Magic isn't always bad in Thedas. Mages can heal the sick and wounded, and who knows what they can do to improve everyday life since we only see combat-suited magic. I'm sure they could water crops during a drought for instance since we see weather-based combat magic.

[quote]Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

I did not know being a mage is having a completely different faith. The more you know.[/quote]

WOW. The point went so far over your head, you would need a Hubble telescope to see it.

[quote]LookingGlass93 wrote...

What I don't understand is why in societies without (reputable) doctors the only reliable medical professionals, mages, are kept in prisons in the middle of nowhere.[/quote]

An excellent point. That's a great example of what I meant by magic in Thedas not being inherently evil as it is in the paranoid lunacy of real life.

[quote]Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

I do not want to touch the genocide subject it is way too touchy.[/quote]

Then you're in the wrong place, debating the wrong subject.

[quote]Hawke still had some control of the situation even if Meredith wanted them all dead. When you go in you can choose to execute or spare mages and the rest of the templars follow his order.

Going into that situation did not necessarily mean you were going to go in and butcher everyone.[/quote]

Yes it did. That's what the Right of Annulment is. Gregior says it's to "neutralize the Circle. Completely." We got a PG'd version.

[IanPolaris]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch 

And if you do this quest you gain an understanding of why its so dangerous to help the mages out.

Oh bullpucky.  Lelianna is a completely different mage-hating character who can't even do her own damn job as Seeker.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch 

And if you do this quest you gain an understanding of why its so dangerous to help the mages out.

All "Faith" showed me was that (Sister Nightingale) Leliana was blaming the unrest in Kirkwall on the mages, despite the fact that Meredith becoming a dictator for three years has caused mages and templars to ally with one another to depose her rule, and a pro-mage Hawke can publicly condemn her dictatorship following agreement among the common people and the nobles. This showed me how dangerous it was to allow an incompetent person like Leliana to have any level of responsibility over the lives of others.

[The Baconer]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch 

And if you do this quest you gain an understanding of why its so dangerous to help the mages out.

So? Am I supposed to believe the 'rights' and feelings of mundanes should be valued above those of mages?

[LobselVith8]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

He's getting tired of your snide insinuations.

Seriously though, I doubt there is a way to phrase that criticism in a way that Mr. Gaider would approve of. It's understandable of course, since all these questions at least imply that writing was not as good as it should have been. Which I hope they realize is the case and seeek to improve for the future.

My number one question would be: "why didn't we explore the factors that were crucial to the conflict build up that DA2 was supposed to be, like the mage resistance especially?"

You're probably right about that, KoP - I don't imagine Gaider will find such criticism to his liking, no matter how it's written. I also agree that it would have been good to see the mage underground, and Anders' claim that he could not let Hawke be part of it always rang hollow to me, especially when he asks Hawke to assist in getting evidence about the Tranquil Solution. Getting to know the mage underground would have been a good opportunity to see the diverse groups of mages that wanted to be emancipated from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars.

I think it would have been a good opportunity to have Hawke more proactive if he was involved in the resistance. In the vanilla game, I've I found Hawke to be reactive, and he has this tendency of letting the antagonists either walk away ("Sheparding Wolves," "Legacy") or killing someone right in front of him while he does absolutely nothing ("Best Served Cold"). He also does nothing with his newfound wealth and status, and never uses his position as Champion to challenge Meredith when she becomes dictator until he stumbles on Orsino publicly advocating her removal three years later.

[TEWR]

Why? He was just your average power-hungry douche. Cid and Venat were mere interesting with their "history should be in mankind's hands" theology but I was ready to throw up after ten billionth horse reins metaphor. And if they actually made SOME effort to prove that man deserves that power, they'd be the type of sympathetic antagonists that are more memorable. Instead, what do they do? Bomb the **** out of a city full of refugees and peaceful priests (peaceful, unlike the Chantry) for... uhhh... I forget, was it just for the lulz or what? Then again, I've never found a Final Fantasy antagonist very interesting or complex. The most popular is obviously Sephiroth, but Kefka is a close second. That... I don't even BEGIN to understand. Kefka was the most boring, one-dimensional, cardboard cutout villain EVER. His entire backstory consisted of one line from an anonymous townsperson in Vector. Magitech experiments made him nuts. That's why he's so deranged, that's why he lights people on fire for the lulz, that's why he dresses like a gay rodeo clown, that's why EVERYTHING.

I count Cid and Venat among my favorite antagonists, but they were more secondary than primary. In terms of the primary antagonists, Vayne wins. In terms of antagonists overall, Cid and Venat top Vayne.

I liked him because despite his ambition, he too believed that man should have control over their fate.

[Torax]

It should be noted. Leliana wasn't blaming anyone in particular. She was just a tool to inform the player that "Resolutionists" were working behind the scenes. This just lets people know that an off shoot of the Circle was attempting to the stir the pot and obviously didn't care about the consequences. This doesn't state her opinion or even that of the Divine. It's just her stating what she sees since the attack on her person proved what she suspected. Faith was more just to show the player early on in Act 3 that obviously some mages within the system are not innocent. Stronger writing weaving Orsino into the situation instead of a random off shoot would have been better to me but we didn't have that. So since you have Meredith basically wanting a battle and it was referenced in Awakening that the Circle was in it's own arguments on the subject before the events in Act 3? It needed to be addressed in some form and Faith does this...

[EmperorSahlertz]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

PuppyFlavour wrote...

SkittlesKat96 wrote...

I know for sure that if magic existed in real life during the dark ages or medieval ages all the mages would be upstanding blokes and wouldn't do such horrible things and wouldn't do insane things for their freedoms even if they had the potential magic to do so

My sarcasm-detector goes off, but I say you have a point. If magic existed in real life during those ages, anyone wielding it would probably be burned on a stake before they had the chance to do much harm. If you look at the witch-huntings back then, the Chantry is rather tame in comparison to its real-life equivalent.

What I don't understand is why in societies without (reputable) doctors the only reliable medical professionals, mages, are kept in prisons in the middle of nowhere.

Chantry priests apparently also double as surgeons in some instances. So there are "medical staff" outside the Circles. Wether or not they are as effective as a Circle mage couldprobably be argued.

[Torax]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LookingGlass93 wrote...

PuppyFlavour wrote...

SkittlesKat96 wrote...

I know for sure that if magic existed in real life during the dark ages or medieval ages all the mages would be upstanding blokes and wouldn't do such horrible things and wouldn't do insane things for their freedoms even if they had the potential magic to do so

My sarcasm-detector goes off, but I say you have a point. If magic existed in real life during those ages, anyone wielding it would probably be burned on a stake before they had the chance to do much harm. If you look at the witch-huntings back then, the Chantry is rather tame in comparison to its real-life equivalent.

What I don't understand is why in societies without (reputable) doctors the only reliable medical professionals, mages, are kept in prisons in the middle of nowhere.

Chantry priests apparently also double as surgeons in some instances. So there are "medical staff" outside the Circles. Wether or not they are as effective as a Circle mage couldprobably be argued.

I do find it funny though that for the Circle and the Chantry, the Spirit Healer concept of a spirit helping a mage heal is acceptable. So maybe to the Templars & the Chantry it's thought of as a necessary evil? Either way it's sort of like resting the fate of the mage partially in the hands of a spirit for better or worse.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


Chantry priests apparently also double as surgeons in some instances. So there are "medical staff" outside the Circles. Wether or not they are as effective as a Circle mage couldprobably be argued.

From the sounds of it, it seems mostly leeches and henbane stuff. Pretty limited in effectiveness. It also seems that wealthy people and nobles keep mages around for healing, and given it's likely due to them being able to afford more effective treatment than commoners.

[GavrielKay]

phaonica wrote...
And what amount of relating to the opposing side of this argument (that sometimes maybe it *is* understandable to slaughter said group of people) is going to change the pro-mage player's mind? For the pro mage players out there, is there any possible way you could ever see yourself questioning this fundamental stance?

...

However, I still wonder if any amount of showing the dangers posed by
mages would ever be enough to sufficiently justify mage internment,
particularly to currently pro mage players.

In order for me to support an RoA I would have to feel it was truly being called in a no-win situation.  Meredith wanting to appease her blood lust and satisfy a mob just doesn't come close.  As another poster mentioned, in DAO they could have had something about not doing the RoA backfire on the Warden.  A saved mage kills a few people before being put down or something like that.  Something to make the point that you can't tell who's been compromised.  Because if the abominations will always attack you, then it's pretty easy to weed them out without a mass slaughter.  It's a matter of somehow considering a circle truly iredeeamable.  Not just unruly or restive, which is about all we see in the Kirkwall circle.

I don't think even the possibility of an Exalted March matters.  The immediate choice is kill innocents or not.  If the Divine wants to seal her place in whatever passes for hell in Thedas by destroying the city, that's her call.

As to keeping them prisoner for life, even after training etc...  well, I'd have to really believe that mages are likely to be possessed just because.  Like 1 in 10 mages will just *poof* get possessed while dreaming or drinking coffee.  If it happens only to mages who actively pursue or give in to it, then they should be dealt with individually as criminals and not en masse as mages.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


Chantry priests apparently also double as surgeons in some instances. So there are "medical staff" outside the Circles. Wether or not they are as effective as a Circle mage couldprobably be argued.

From the sounds of it, it seems mostly leeches and henbane stuff. Pretty limited in effectiveness. It also seems that wealthy people and nobles keep mages around for healing, and given it's likely due to them being able to afford more effective treatment than commoners.

I doubt the use of leeches and hensbane qualify you as a surgeon..