1253 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

Arent they going fables route? Compare 2 and 3. Same thing they dumb it down and start heading towards action game and simplify it for casual gamers.


But thats another topic entirely.

I meant story and morality wise.

[Follow Me on Twitter]

You could argue that the choice became killing innocents or supporting terrorism.

Modifié par Follow Me on Twitter, 01 septembre 2011 - 03:30 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

You could argue that the choice became killing innocents or supporting terrorism.

How is supporting the Circle, supporting terrorism? They had nothing to do with what Anders did.

Only a fanatic like Meredith would see the situation in these terms.

[Follow Me on Twitter]

So, Anders blows up a chantry in order to start a conflict in which he wants the mages to rebel and gain their freedom. And you side with the mages and help them achieve this. So Anders plan worked?

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Oh nevermind that they are planning to rebel against their Knight-Commander and is fleeing the Circle left and right. Those aren't crimes.... Just for planning against their superior could be enough to warrant a purge...

Technically, all we know is that First Enchanter Orsino thought Meredith was overstepping her bounds, and was heading to the Grand Cleric to resolve the issue. As for rebelling against the Knight-Commander, are you talking about Ser Thrask gathering templars and mages to remove a dictator from power, who are working side by side under the leadership of a templar no less?

Are you asking becasue you are in doubt? Then let me make it perfectly clear for you. Yes. That one exactly.

Their "superior" was a dictator. In an unprecedented move, mages were working alongside templars under the leadership of Ser Thrask to remove Meredith from power. They were planning to move against the Knight-Commander who has illegally taken power over the entire city-state, who was acting as the de facto Viscount, even putting templars in the Viscount's Keep while she prevented the election of a new Viscount and was causing unrest among mages and templars. Even the people of the city-state will support the Champion of Kirkwall if he publicly supports First Enchanter Orsino and speaks out against her. I think it should have been obvious to the leadership in the Chantry that Meredith needed to be removed from her station.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Yes. I agree.  In Thedas the people in that world would regard the circle as a moral fact.  They also would recognize that punishing someone for the crime of someone else is still wrong.  Even sebastian says so during the game.

In case you missed it, moral facts can change as people get better information.  They can and do in fact.

-Polaris

Yea I don't think anyone even remotely reasonable would believe that Meredith had it right. Which makes me wonder why Cullen took so long. The people want blood excuse is just a poor one.

Meredith's reason from a practical view was enough to make me say no to her. The fact that she was using appealing to the mob as an excuse pretty much killed any chance of me seriously siding with her. I mean, didn't Awakening's show us that giving into mobs and rabble rousing was a pretty bad idea?

I'd say, it's more like Meredith wants blood. She has been wanting blood for a long time. And the game gave me to reason to believe that annulling the Circle would restore anything remotely resembling order.

[Herr Uhl]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

So, Anders blows up a chantry in order to start a conflict in which he wants the mages to rebel and gain their freedom. And you side with the mages and help them achieve this. So Anders plan worked?

So you'd kill innocents just to prove a point?

And yes, evidently his masterplan of "blow stuff up and die" worked. Well, unless you spared him.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It obviously isn't the cause since mages of Kirkwall has ALWAYS been rebellious. The mages themselves have forced the Templars to crack down on them so hard.

There's no evidence that's true. By the time Hawke arrives in Kirkwall, Meredith is Knight-Commander, and he can only see how things are now. Anders mentions that he came to Kirkwall because Karl wrote to him and told him how bad things were under Meredith, and it's Karl's tranquility and death that seems to spur Anders to join the underground resistance. We know Ser Kerras and others are violating at least one mage, Alain. We know Ser Alrik is making mages tranquil illegally and implies to rape an underage mage when Hawke encounters him (according to the letter Bethany wrote to Hawke, which references Ella as a child).  A female tranquil tells the mage she was romantically involved with that "Only Ser Alrik can command me now," and explains that it was her romance with a mage that caused Alrik to tranquil her. We know mages are beaten if they speak to any civilians and the proprietor is whipped if anyone steals from her. Considering how Meredith becomes a dictator over all of Kirkwall, to the point that mages are willing to work with templars to oust her from power because both sides see her as a serious problem, I don't agree with your statement.

On the contrary. There is no evidence that it isn't true. We got entries stating that Kirkwall has always had problems with blood mages, and we know those go far longer back than the current Templar regime.

Also, that a mage is whipped, while not nice, is probably not only happening to mages. If a commoner is working for a merchant, and let something get stolen, he would probably be whipped aswell.

And since we are taking EVERYTHING the random mages as absolute truth. Then the Circle isn't so bad. Since that is exactly what one of the mages say. More likely, the comment you are referring to, is brought on the by the state of fear and uncertainty which has taken hold in the Circle.

Funnily enough, Meredith only becomes the dictator becasue she feels the mages has forced her to.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

So, Anders blows up a chantry in order to start a conflict in which he wants the mages to rebel and gain their freedom. And you side with the mages and help them achieve this. So Anders plan worked?

It worked already, regardless of who you side with, because of Meredith's stupidity.

And helping mages gain their freedom, or just saving them from an unjust and unwarranted massacre, does not necessarily mean you condone Anders' act. It's a false dichotomy.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 septembre 2011 - 03:39 .

[LobselVith8]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

You could argue that the choice became killing innocents or supporting terrorism.

Meredith makes it clear that she's going to murder hundreds of people who are innocent of Anders' actions in order to appease a hypothetical mob.

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

So, Anders blows up a chantry in order to start a conflict in which he wants the mages to rebel and gain their freedom. And you side with the mages and help them achieve this. So Anders plan worked?

Mages are fighting templars because they don't want to be killed. It has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with self-preservation. And Hawke can side with the Circle mages to protect hundreds of men, women, and children who are not responsible for the actions of one, single apostate.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

So, Anders blows up a chantry in order to start a conflict in which he wants the mages to rebel and gain their freedom. And you side with the mages and help them achieve this. So Anders plan worked?

Anders didn'[t have a plan in the first place. He bombed the chantry to bring about a conflict. After which, he was expecting to die. So he had no "plans" whatsoever.

The extent of Anders plans ended when the Chantry went boom.

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Funnily enough, Meredith only becomes the dictator becasue she feels the mages has forced her to.

Most if not all dictators become dictators because they feel they should, for whatever reason.

I wouldn't mind if they were competent and had the right idea (like Bhelen). But Meredith is incompetent.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Funnily enough, Meredith only becomes the dictator becasue she feels the mages has forced her to.

That's an excuse a lot of dictators use.  Napoleon comes immediately to mind.

-Polaris

[Follow Me on Twitter]

Hypothetical mob? The divine have marched on nations for alot less. I think you guys just avoid seeing how great a threat that it actually is.

It has nothing to do with preservation. If it were the others circles would not have been inspired to rebel after seeing the mages in Kirkwall fight back and even after Meredith had been dealt with.

They both have their evils and when i say both i mean both organizations. The circle have share of corruption and radicals just the same as the templars the only difference is that they showcased a very insane Templar higher up while Orsino was shown as reasonable and not wanting to fight.

Modifié par Follow Me on Twitter, 01 septembre 2011 - 03:46 .

[IanPolaris]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

Hypothetical mob? The divine have marched on nations for alot less. I think you guys just avoid seeing how great a threat that it actually is.

It has nothing to do with preservation. If it were the others circles would not have been inspired to rebel after seeing the mages in Kirkwall fight back and even after Meredith had been dealt with.

We have no control over what the Divine might or might not do. That is HER moral choice.  Ours is simple: Do we or do we not slaughter a whole group of people for the crimes of another?

Yes or no.

-Polaris

[Mr.House]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Mages are fighting templars because they don't want to be killed. It has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with self-preservation. And Hawke can side with the Circle mages to protect hundreds of men, women, and children who are not responsible for the actions of one, single apostate.

Hawke does not protect inocents or children. She/he does not protect anyone but Orsino and we all know how that goes, just like if you side with Meredith. You don't  kill inocent mages or children at all. Hawke goes right to Orsino killing demons and blood mages. What the games wants you to beleive and what is showen are two diffrent things.

Modifié par Mr.House, 01 septembre 2011 - 03:47 .

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It obviously isn't the cause since mages of Kirkwall has ALWAYS been rebellious. The mages themselves have forced the Templars to crack down on them so hard.

There's no evidence that's true. By the time Hawke arrives in Kirkwall, Meredith is Knight-Commander, and he can only see how things are now. Anders mentions that he came to Kirkwall because Karl wrote to him and told him how bad things were under Meredith, and it's Karl's tranquility and death that seems to spur Anders to join the underground resistance. We know Ser Kerras and others are violating at least one mage, Alain. We know Ser Alrik is making mages tranquil illegally and implies to rape an underage mage when Hawke encounters him (according to the letter Bethany wrote to Hawke, which references Ella as a child).  A female tranquil tells the mage she was romantically involved with that "Only Ser Alrik can command me now," and explains that it was her romance with a mage that caused Alrik to tranquil her. We know mages are beaten if they speak to any civilians and the proprietor is whipped if anyone steals from her. Considering how Meredith becomes a dictator over all of Kirkwall, to the point that mages are willing to work with templars to oust her from power because both sides see her as a serious problem, I don't agree with your statement.

On the contrary. There is no evidence that it isn't true. We got entries stating that Kirkwall has always had problems with blood mages, and we know those go far longer back than the current Templar regime.

Which doesn't provide us any evidence about who started it - mages or templars. Did mages turn to blood magic to give them an edge against those they saw as their oppressors? We don't know. It was too long ago for any of us to know.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Also, that a mage is whipped, while not nice, is probably not only happening to mages. If a commoner is working for a merchant, and let something get stolen, he would probably be whipped aswell.

"Probably not"?

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And since we are taking EVERYTHING the random mages as absolute truth. Then the Circle isn't so bad. Since that is exactly what one of the mages say. More likely, the comment you are referring to, is brought on the by the state of fear and uncertainty which has taken hold in the Circle.

If mages are telling Hawke they can't speak to him because they will get beaten, then I don't see why that should be disregarded, especially when Hawke can hear someone getting beaten when the gate at the Gallows is closed.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Funnily enough, Meredith only becomes the dictator becasue she feels the mages has forced her to.

Meredith becomes dictator when the Viscount is killed, and her performance as the de facto Viscount is enough to prompt two factions to unite to see her removed.

[Follow Me on Twitter]

IanPolaris wrote...

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

Hypothetical mob? The divine have marched on nations for alot less. I think you guys just avoid seeing how great a threat that it actually is.

It has nothing to do with preservation. If it were the others circles would not have been inspired to rebel after seeing the mages in Kirkwall fight back and even after Meredith had been dealt with.

We have no control over what the Divine might or might not do. That is HER moral choice.  Ours is simple: Do we or do we not slaughter a whole group of people for the crimes of another?

Yes or no.

-Polaris

AGAIN regardless of choice you are killing civilians. Do you think the conflict is only going to target mages and templars? Just because the game does not show you a bunch of mages executing innocents outright. The war has been going on for 3 years both sides are probably just as equally despised at this point by everyone.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

Hypothetical mob? The divine have marched on nations for alot less. I think you guys just avoid seeing how great a threat that it actually is.

It has nothing to do with preservation. If it were the others circles would not have been inspired to rebel after seeing the mages in Kirkwall fight back and even after Meredith had been dealt with.

Rebellion and the pursuit of freedom are forms of self-preservation, especially when the only options are to fight or flee, as is the case with most mages. Given that the College of Magi was meeting clear back in Awakening, it's not like the mages just suddenly decided to rebel. That they were so openly meeting to discuss a complete break from the Chantry suggests that things had been deteriorating for some time, and that circumstances in many Circles were undesirable.

[GavrielKay]

Mr.House wrote...
What the games wants you to beleive and what is showen are two diffrent things.

Which is a huge problem in this game generally.

However, Hawke can know the definition of the RoA and know that it means killing every mage in the circle no matter what.  That the devs decided to dumb it down a bit is a disappointment.

[Mr.House]

GavrielKay wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
What the games wants you to beleive and what is showen are two diffrent things.

Which is a huge problem in this game generally.

However, Hawke can know the definition of the RoA and know that it means killing every mage in the circle no matter what.  That the devs decided to dumb it down a bit is a disappointment.

Hawke was given one mission from Meredith, to get to Orsino. Hawke is not told to kill every mage or children, that ist he duty of the Templars, which they do anyways even if you side with the mages because you are with Orsino for half the battle, not protecting the children or other mages.

It's just a horrible done part that reeks of bad writing, hopefully Bioware does a much better job in DA3.

[IanPolaris]

Mr.House wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Mages are fighting templars because they don't want to be killed. It has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with self-preservation. And Hawke can side with the Circle mages to protect hundreds of men, women, and children who are not responsible for the actions of one, single apostate.

Hawke does not protect inocents or children. She/he does not protect anyone but Orsino and we all know how that goes, just like if you side with Meredith. You don't  kill inocent mages or children at all. Hawke goes right to Orsino killing demons and blood mages. What the games wants you to beleive and what is showen are two diffrent things.

Yes he does, or he tries.  Read the codecies on the circle or for that matter read Bethany's letter.  The circle is an entirely self-contained community including little children who are taken away to learn magic.  We saw them explicitly in the Fereldan tower, but they exist in all circle towers.  If you agree to the Right of Annulment, you are obligated to kill them all.  If Bioware really wanted to protray this HONESTLY, we should have a pro-templar Hawke hacking children to pieces on his way to Orsino.  Just saying.

So yes, if Hawke does side with Orsino, then he is protecting little children or at least trying.  He might try and fail, but there is no moral failure in trying and failing.  The failure is not to try.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Mr.House wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Mages are fighting templars because they don't want to be killed. It has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with self-preservation. And Hawke can side with the Circle mages to protect hundreds of men, women, and children who are not responsible for the actions of one, single apostate.

Hawke does not protect inocents or children.

The hundreds of mages in the Gallows are innocent of Anders' actions, and Bethany's letter in Act II confirms there are children who are denizens of the Gallows. The Magi Origin and "A Broken Circle" confirm children are indeed residents of the Circles of Magi.

Mr.House wrote...

She/he does not protect anyone but Orsino and we all know how that goes, just like if you side with Meredith.

Excuse me? Hawke doesn't go to the Gallows to protect Orsino - he goes to protect the mages. Even Orsino's argument focuses on the mages of the Circle of Kirkwall. If Hawke was only protecting Orsino, defeating all the templars in the first part of "The Last Straw" would have ended the quest. Hawke sides with Orsino to protect the hundreds of mages living in the Gallows from Meredith.

Mr.House wrote...

You don't  kill inocent mages or children at all.

The Right of Annulment is about killing all the mages of the Circle of Magi - every man, woman, and child.

Mr.House wrote...

Hawke goes right to Orsino killing demons and blood mages. What the games wants you to beleive and what is showen are two diffrent things.

The two choices are to support Meredith's Right of Annulment - where she proclaimed to kill every mage - or to protect the mages from Meredith.

[IanPolaris]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

AGAIN regardless of choice you are killing civilians. Do you think the conflict is only going to target mages and templars? Just because the game does not show you a bunch of mages executing innocents outright. The war has been going on for 3 years both sides are probably just as equally despised at this point by everyone.

Utterly false.  At the time the choice is presented, it's clear cut.  Do you protect innocents against a crime they did not commit or do you not.  That is the bottom line.  All the other killing lies on Meredith's shoulders for initiating the RoA in the first place.

Again, trying and failing is not a moral issue.  Failure to try is.

-Polaris

[Follow Me on Twitter]

I love the choices in this game it makes everyone side with the mages because of how much of the bad side of templars they actually showed. I hope they take advantage of that in the dlc and start showing just how cruel and dangerous the mages can be. Just so it takes everyone by surprise.


And yes i agree with you that the choices at the end were not morally grey and they probably could have worked on that more or atleast not claim it to be morally grey.

Modifié par Follow Me on Twitter, 01 septembre 2011 - 03:58 .