1253 réponses à ce sujet

[GavrielKay]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

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.

They attempted to show plenty of bad mages.  Trouble is, they were such cartoon cutout villians that they weren't persuasive.

[Mr.House]

IanPolaris wrote...

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

You must have gotten a diffrent version the me. The version I have is Hawke fighting in a big room with Orsino and other mages,no children or inocents are there.

We don't even go to the other parts of the gallows, we only go to the main part of it, where Orsino, Meredith and the Templars quaters are located. No where else. So no, Hawke does not protect any children just liek Hawke does not kill any inocents or children, contray to what the pro mages want people to beleive.

[IanPolaris]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

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.

That would be different from Act III how?  The point is it doesn't matter whether you thought the mages were right or wrong after Anders blows up the tower.

The problem is this:  Punishing one (or group) of people when you KNOW another is guilty is wrong.  It's what I call a 'moral fact' (or widely recognized conventional moral wisdom) and no amount of sliming of mages changes that.

-Polaris

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


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.

Funny enough, the creepiest things in the Gallows dialogues were from the Tranquils, who, well, would have no reason to deliberately lie or exaggerate. When I have freaking tranquils talking about how they will get beaten if they screw up or misplace/break something.

When you have tranquils, who are basically unoffensive walking lobotomies, describing abuse (and this is in ACT 1), then it no longer becomes an issue of those "lying mages" trying to gain sympathy. It becomes a situation where you have an insane assylum being run by people who should themselves be locked up. And in Act 1, I saw alot of things, talked to alot of people outside the gallows, that already established in my mind that meredith was either a complete waste of space in terms of being a military commander and leader, or already a sadistic psychopathic bully who either ignored or encouraged the excesses of her Templars.

[GavrielKay]

Mr.House wrote...
We don't even go to the other parts of the gallows, we only go to the main part of it, where Orsino, Meredith and the Templars quaters are located. No where else. So no, Hawke does not protect any children just liek Hawke does not kill any inocents or children, contray to what the pro mages want people to beleive.

The only real "proof" you get that you helped is that in the epilogue, Varric will either say some lived to tell the tale or "many" lived to tell the tale.

The idea in going against Meredith is to cut a swath through the Templars to allow more mages to escape the Gallows.  Apparently it works, even if we barely get any feedback on it.

[IanPolaris]

Mr.House wrote...

You must have gotten a diffrent version the me. The version I have is Hawke fighting in a big room with Orsino and other mages,no children or inocents are there.

You aren't shown them but if you read the codex entries about the circle, or Bethany's letter, or even did the Broken Circle Quest in DAO, then you know that the circle houses children.  It is cowardly writing IMHO on the part of Bioware.

We don't even go to the other parts of the gallows, we only go to the main part of it, where Orsino, Meredith and the Templars quaters are located. No where else. So no, Hawke does not protect any children just liek Hawke does not kill any inocents or children, contray to what the pro mages want people to beleive.

Wrong.  By helping the mages, Hawke is doing his part to protect children.  Just because there isn't a preschool right behind your part of the front lines when you defend say a city, does not mean you aren't protecting the city's children.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

Hypothetical mob?

Yes, Meredith's argument for Hawke to support the Right of Annulment in "The Last Straw" focuses on a hypothetical mob who will demand blood.

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

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

People are addressing Meredith's actual argument towards the end of Act III - which is to help her kill mages because she wants to appease the bloodlust of the people she imagines will demand the deaths of all in the Circle of Kirkwall.

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

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.

The rebellions happened among the remaining Circles of Magi as a result of what transpired in Kirkwall. As far as the Kirkwall mages are concerned, it's a matter of life and death when the templars are trying to kill them for Anders' actions. And Varric addresses it's Hawke who inspires the mages to rebel - by showing them that the templars can be defied.

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

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.

People have their own ideas about supporting the Chantry controlled Circles or the autonomy of the Circles from the Chantry of Andraste. I don't think anyone imagines that either faction is perfect.

[Follow Me on Twitter]

GavrielKay wrote...

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

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.

They attempted to show plenty of bad mages.  Trouble is, they were such cartoon cutout villians that they weren't persuasive.

Showcasing a bunch of insane apostates does not show us what exactly is going on with the circle mages.

They are just crazy apostates. thats like judging all the templars because of something Samson does.

[jlb524]

Mr.House wrote...

We don't even go to the other parts of the gallows, we only go to the main part of it, where Orsino, Meredith and the Templars quaters are located. No where else. So no, Hawke does not protect any children just liek Hawke does not kill any inocents or children, contray to what the pro mages want people to beleive.

Orsino isn't going to go up into the Gallows and bring all the children down to the courtyard where the first leg of the battle is taking place just to show them off to the Templars....it wouldn't work anyway as the Templars were tasked to kill them as well.

If the Templars would have broken through Hawke's defenses in that courtyard, what would they have done?

[IanPolaris]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

Showcasing a bunch of insane apostates does not show us what exactly is going on with the circle mages.

They are just crazy apostates. thats like judging all the templars because of something Samson does.

Yet Meredith does believe this which is one big reason she is a can short of a six-pack.

-Polaris

[GavrielKay]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

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.

They attempted to show plenty of bad mages.  Trouble is, they were such cartoon cutout villians that they weren't persuasive.

Showcasing a bunch of insane apostates does not show us what exactly is going on with the circle mages.

They are just crazy apostates. thats like judging all the templars because of something Samson does.

Yeah, I know.  I never said I agreed with their attempt.  Only that the other poster was wrong (if they weren't just being sarcastic, can't tell...) that we weren't supposedly shown how cruel mages can be.

[LobselVith8]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

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.

It's already been stated by the developers - Gaider included - that they tried to sway people to side with templars because, according to Gaider, players sided with mages "almost by default." It's the reason given for why Orsino worked with Quentin. That's why there were a plethora of insane and stupid mage antagonists in the storyline, which is why I was wondering if this was going to transpire again in Dragon Age 2 DLC.

I don't see the point in trying to sway pro-templar players to side with the mages or to try to sway pro-mage players to side with the templars and the Chantry of Andraste. Gaider's snide comments denigrating "Western values" as the reason people sided with the mages don't really compel me to side with the templars or the Chantry.

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

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.

I think the storyline needed more work. A lot of it needed to be fleshed out - and I could have done with more three-dimensional characters on both sides of the debate instead of Orsino turning Harvester because Hawke was the victor against the incoming templars or Meredith being possessed by a glowing sword so she could become Thedas' first Super-Sayian.

[IanPolaris]

jlb524 wrote...

If the Templars would have broken through Hawke's defenses in that courtyard, what would they have done?

I think I can answer that:  The stout door of oak finally splinters as a large burly man in the Plate Mail of the Templar order stained and spattered with blood and viscera of the mages he cut though dries on the once shiny metal.  The gathered children, the eldest no more than 8 gasp in horror as the Templar steps forward, lifts his visor, and before mercilessly cutting the kiddies down says, "Here's Johnney!"

-Polaris

[GavrielKay]

IanPolaris wrote...
Yet Meredith does believe this which is one big reason she is a can short of a six-pack.
-Polaris

I think the only part of a six pack that Meredith has left is that stupid plastic ring that they tell you kills tons of fish every year.

I can understand, but not agree with, the position that maybe helping Meredith destroy the circle will stave off an Exalted March and thus result in an overall greater number of lives saved. 

But I don't even understand the position that the circle actually, really, truly deserves to be annuled because Meredith is too crazy to maintain control.  There is absolutely no evidence presented that the circle mages themselves are a clear and immediate danger to the people of Kirkwall, which is supposed to be the ONLY reason to call an RoA.  Not just because they are blocking the whims of a mad dictator.

[Follow Me on Twitter]

I'm not so sure it helped sway anyone to the templar side.

Most of the players on these boards support the mages. With some even supporting Anders act of terrorism which is absolutely insane.

The templars actually came out looking much worse this game then in the last one.

[LobselVith8]

Mr.House wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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

You must have gotten a diffrent version the me. The version I have is Hawke fighting in a big room with Orsino and other mages,no children or inocents are there.

I didn't realize the hundreds of mages referenced in Brother Genitivi's codex could fit into one small room.

Mr.House wrote...

We don't even go to the other parts of the gallows, we only go to the main part of it, where Orsino, Meredith and the Templars quaters are located. No where else. So no, Hawke does not protect any children just liek Hawke does not kill any inocents or children, contray to what the pro mages want people to beleive.

Hawke either helps Meredith with the Right of Annulment or he protects the mages from the Right of Annulment invoked by the Knight-Commander - which is why Varric only references "many survivors" in the mage version.

[GavrielKay]

It's interesting that another difference between DAO and DA2 is that when you offer to help Gregoir regain control of the circle, it isn't about freeing the mages. It's only about whether you should kill everything that moves, or only the ones who attack you. One of the arguments I've heard against defying Meredith in DA2 is that mages can't be trusted to be free, but apparently it doesn't have to be that way - the mages we saved in DAO remained in the circle under Gregoir after it was cleansed. Meredith isn't interested in any sort of compromise - she just wants them all dead. That's part of what made it impossible for me to support her.

[Follow Me on Twitter]

Shes insane. She is not capable of compromise the only way it could have been brought to any sort of peaceful end was to have Hawke and Orsino go to the grand cleric and voice the fact that she was clearly insane.

You can't reason with a crazy person and to top it all off she is a fanatic.

"A fanatic is one who won't change his mind and won't change the subject." -Winston Churchill

Modifié par Follow Me on Twitter, 01 septembre 2011 - 04:25 .

[Harid]

Meredith didn't help anyone choose the Templar side. This is kind of clear.  If Bioware was trying to get people to sympathise with mages, having Meredith in the game directly contradicts that aim.

This was a black and black choice through and through.  Lunatic or terrorist.

Modifié par Harid, 01 septembre 2011 - 04:36 .

[Xilizhra]

Harid wrote...

Meredith didn't help anyone choose the Templar side. This is kind of clear.  If Bioware was trying to get people to sympathise with mages, having Meredith in the game directly contradicts that aim.

This was a black and black choice through and through.  Lunatic or terrorist.

Um...
Moral quantity of said terrorist aside, you can outright kill him and not fight in his war; all you'd need to do is fight against the ensuing genocide.

Most of the players on these boards support the mages. With some even supporting Anders act of terrorism which is absolutely insane.

I lol'd.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 01 septembre 2011 - 04:38 .

[Harid]

Xilizhra wrote...

Harid wrote...

Meredith didn't help anyone choose the Templar side. This is kind of clear.  If Bioware was trying to get people to sympathise with mages, having Meredith in the game directly contradicts that aim.

This was a black and black choice through and through.  Lunatic or terrorist.

Um...
Moral quantity of said terrorist aside, you can outright kill him and not fight in his war; all you'd need to do is fight against the ensuing genocide.

Most of the players on these boards support the mages. With some even supporting Anders act of terrorism which is absolutely insane.

I lol'd.

You are fighting in his war by choosing his side quite directly, killing him or no.

Not to mention the regular people mages are killing.

I guess they really don't matter because you don't see them though.

Modifié par Harid, 01 septembre 2011 - 04:40 .

[GavrielKay]

Harid wrote...

Meredith didn't help anyone choose the Templar side. This is kind of clear.  If Bioware was trying to get people to sympathise with mages, having Meredith in the game directly contradicts that aim.

This was a black and black choice through and through.  Lunatic or terrorist.

But helping to protect the mages who had nothing to do with Anders' attack isn't supporting terrorism.  So it's supporting a lunatic or a group of innocent mages.

[Xilizhra]

You are fighting in his war by choosing his side quite directly, killing him or no.

You're fighting in his war regardless of which side you choose. It's just a choice of whether or not to be a mass murderer.

[esper]

Harid wrote...

Meredith didn't help anyone choose the Templar side. This is kind of clear.  If Bioware was trying to get people to sympathise with mages, having Meredith in the game directly contradicts that aim.

This was a black and black choice through and through.  Lunatic or terrorist.

I don't think I understand how lunatic Meridith contradicts sympathise with mages.
And supporting the mages is not supporting Anders, it is defending them.
That said I side with mages because I do support Anders and I think he is right.

[Harid]

GavrielKay wrote...

Harid wrote...

Meredith didn't help anyone choose the Templar side. This is kind of clear.  If Bioware was trying to get people to sympathise with mages, having Meredith in the game directly contradicts that aim.

This was a black and black choice through and through.  Lunatic or terrorist.

But helping to protect the mages who had nothing to do with Anders' attack isn't supporting terrorism.  So it's supporting a lunatic or a group of innocent mages.

Are mages not helping to burn Kirkwall?  Or do i remember a different ending sequence than the rest of you.  Who set fire to the town?  Anders' explosion?  The mages running around town?  The Templars, maybe, for no reason?

But again, I am not getting in this argument on these forums; mages good, templars bad, blah blah blah.