38 réponses à ce sujet

[tevikolady]

Ok, so I thougt about it, and I want to hear everyone's thoughts.

While I played DA2 I was pro-mage.  I was always pro-mage, I kinda had it instilled in me since Origins, but that was because of Origins, not for any reason DA2 gave me.  In fact, DA2 almost drove me to the arms of the Templars, and I will explain why.

of all the mage vs templar scenarios, you only find ONE true abuse of Templars over mages, and that is Ser Alrik.  He has been running around branding mages and hinting at dispicable deeds that he will perform later.  The only other thing I can recall is a group of Templars harrassing a non-mage for aiding an apostate, but that is in ACT 3 when things are almost really out of control anyways.

In Act 1, you have Decimus, who attacks you on sight, Taronhe and Idunna, the finger bones in the foundary, Thrask daughter that turns into an abomination...

In Act 2, you have Gascard DuPuis, Quentin,

In Act 3, you have Grace, Orsino, Evelina, that elf

ok, I could go on, and I'm sure I haven't mentioned them ALL, but the point is, I have one isolated case of Templar injustices, and many times that in mages.  There needs to be an equal amount of Templar injustice to mages running amok then there is.  Its really one sided against the mages.  The only reason I had my Mage supported hat on the entire game was because of the way the events in Origins had imparted upon me, not for anything DA2 did.

I think that Bioware did a poor job of trying to imply mage slavery than they meant to.

[Forst1999]

On the templar side we also have Ser Kerras, who would really like to slaughter Grace's group instead of bringing them to the circle; you mention Ser Mettin, who doesn't just "harrass" people for aiding apostates, but is perfectly willing to kill a dozen civilians in his Act 3 quest (acquired when you support Meredith at the beginning of Act 3), and i don't think that this happening in act 3 makes it any less important.
Many of the mage examples you mentioned directly result from abuses. Thrask's daughter turns into an abomination when slavers try to chop off her hands. Can you blame anyone for trying to take such people down with you? Evelina was an exemplary mage, treated like a criminal for trying to help orphans. "That elf" (Huon) was brutally dragged from the alienage in chains. No excuse for his deeds, but they were a result of templar brutality.
I'm not trying to excuse what this mages did, but they had reasons. And in most cases, the templars were this reasons.

[jamesp81]

I think there's evidence that Ser Karras is a rapist as well. There's also Cullen telling you that mages aren't people. Also, Meredith having a case of the crazies. Templars hanging out at the brothel and living it up while mages are locked away if they're caught having little trysts in the corner.

Nah, I didn't like the templars in Origins, and DA2 didn't improve my opinion of the order.

[jamesp81]

Forst1999 wrote...

On the templar side we also have Ser Kerras, who would really like to slaughter Grace's group instead of bringing them to the circle; you mention Ser Mettin, who doesn't just "harrass" people for aiding apostates, but is perfectly willing to kill a dozen civilians in his Act 3 quest (acquired when you support Meredith at the beginning of Act 3), and i don't think that this happening in act 3 makes it any less important.
Many of the mage examples you mentioned directly result from abuses. Thrask's daughter turns into an abomination when slavers try to chop off her hands. Can you blame anyone for trying to take such people down with you? Evelina was an exemplary mage, treated like a criminal for trying to help orphans. "That elf" (Huon) was brutally dragged from the alienage in chains. No excuse for his deeds, but they were a result of templar brutality.
I'm not trying to excuse what this mages did, but they had reasons. And in most cases, the templars were this reasons.

Indeed.  Tearing Huon's family apart was unforgivable in that they felt justified in doing it, and it clearly never occurred to them that what they were doing was wrong.

I didn't shed any tears destroying the monster Huon had become, but the man should've been left alone from the start.  But he was both an elf and a mage, which makes him a nobody to the Chantry.

[ReallyRue]

tevikolady wrote...

Ok, so I thougt about it, and I want to hear everyone's thoughts.

While I played DA2 I was pro-mage.  I was always pro-mage, I kinda had it instilled in me since Origins, but that was because of Origins, not for any reason DA2 gave me.  In fact, DA2 almost drove me to the arms of the Templars, and I will explain why.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by that? There are a lot of different examples of being pro-mage. In the game for example, Anders, who seems to want mages in ordinary society (and sometimes shows support of Tevinter) and disapproves of blood magic, Merrill who also supports the idea of mages in ordinary society but doesn't actively get involved, and also is fine with blood magic, and then there's CircleBethany, who seems quite happy with the Circle (except for templar abuses and all that) and unlike the others doesn't seem to be 'anti-Chantry'. They're all pro-mage, but still have different perspectives on mages/Circle/Chantry, etc.

[LobselVith8]

The problem is that Alrik isn't an "isolated" case. Ser Kerras also implies he wants to rape a female Hawke ("the pretty one"). This doesn't sound like he is any different than Ser Alrik, and we need to consider all the templars accompanying them who stand by while these two men basically admit they will rape a woman and do nothing about it.

When going to the Dalish camp in Act II before "Night Terrors," templars are confronting Dalish elves about getting Feynriel, and it's revealed the templars tortured a da'len (child) hunter of the Dalish. The templar leader admits she doesn't care about "these knife-ears" and has no problem torturing or killing if it gets Feynriel in the Circle of Kirkwall.

Templars will try to kill Hawke over their suspicions about Ser Kerras' death, even if Hawke doesn't admit to it or says that it was in self-defense.

At the Gallows, Alain will reveal that he is being raped by templars at night (by Kerras also if the templar is still alive), who threaten to make him tranquil if he reveals anything. This is the implied reason he provides in "Best Served Cold" for wanting Meredith overthrown as dictator and for his allegiance to Ser Thrask.

In Act III, Hawke (if he sided with the mages) can confront a death squad of Meredith's who are going to murder a civilian for feeding her starved and tortured mage cousin. The entry even lists the group as Meredith's "death squad."

Therefore, I respectfully disagree that it's simply "one isolated case."

[Lazy Jer]

What Dragon Age 2 made me realize is the following:

(a) The Circle, or something like it, is indeed neccessary.  Untrained, or trained by the wrong people, a single mage can spread misery, despair and blood on a scale no non-mage can.  Even the best intentioned mage can fall prey to demons if not warned about them early on. 

( The Circle needs to change.  The First Enchanter needs to have a greater say in the Circles heirarchy, with rights to petetion the Grand Cleric to resolve grieveance, what's more I believe that the Templar Order and the Circle, through their representatives need to be able to overturn decisions of the Grand Cleric, creating a system of checks and balances to prevent power from corrupting, and they all need to follow the directives of the local laws in whatever city they're camped in.  What's more the Circle should allow more freedom to it's mages.  The Circle should be a place where a young mage wants to go to help him or her learn more about the powers and responsibilities therefor, rather then a place they need to fear and avoid. 

© Power corrupts, and not just mages.  The entire iron of the endgame scenario of DA2 is that Knight-Commander Meredeth became corrupted by magic, something that she was trying to fight.  What's more the artifact didn't so much control the mind of Meredeth the Mad, it simply took what was already there and enhanced it.  This,  again, is why I believe a system of checks and balances needs to be enacted in the Chantry (and in any government as well, to be honest, but I don't want to get off-topic).

[ReallyRue]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The problem is that Alrik isn't an "isolated" case. Ser Kerras also implies he wants to rape a female Hawke ("the pretty one"). This doesn't sound like he is any different than Ser Alrik, and we need to consider all the templars accompanying them who stand by while these two men basically admit they will rape a woman and do nothing about it.

When going to the Dalish camp in Act II before "Night Terrors," templars are confronting Dalish elves about getting Feynriel, and it's revealed the templars tortured a da'len (child) hunter of the Dalish. The templar leader admits she doesn't care about "these knife-ears" and has no problem torturing or killing if it gets Feynriel in the Circle of Kirkwall.

Templars will try to kill Hawke over their suspicions about Ser Kerras' death, even if Hawke doesn't admit to it or says that it was in self-defense.

At the Gallows, Alain will reveal that he is being raped by templars at night (by Kerras also if the templar is still alive), who threaten to make him tranquil if he reveals anything. This is the implied reason he provides in "Best Served Cold" for wanting Meredith overthrown as dictator and for his allegiance to Ser Thrask.

In Act III, Hawke (if he sided with the mages) can confront a death squad of Meredith's who are going to murder a civilian for feeding her starved and tortured mage cousin. The entry even lists the group as Meredith's "death squad."

Therefore, I respectfully disagree that it's simply "one isolated case."

Wow, I didn't know that about Alain or Karras wanting to rape femHawke. Where do you hear these things? I'm assuming the one with Karras is if you agree to kill Thrask for the Starkhaven mages (though I don't remember the dialogue). Is the Alain one just a random dialogue when you can get if you speak to him in the Gallows?

[AlexXIV]

Counting beans will just lead you on the wrong way. You can't just say there have been so and so many templars and so and so many mages who were evil or being bad or whatever. I think the writers tried to give a feel of both sides. There isn't really a right side and wrong side. Templars have their points. Mages have their points. I think the resolution can only be a compromise or one of the two sides perishing.

The 'pre-war situation' is unbearable for mages and one of the big injustices and atrocities of Dragon Age. On the other hand we have the Tevinter Empire which teaches us that mages that go unchecked may be dangerous and foolish enough to cast curses as the Blight over the land which could at many times have been the end of all civilisations of Thedas.

I think what we are supposed to learn is that both sides do have merit, and both sides have their share of bad people who need to be stopped. However, the last decision to annull the Circle is unlawful. And no matter how angry or desperate the people of Kirkwall are, I can't get myself to support this kind of innocent slaying for a mad woman's paranoia. So it is actually Meredith who makes it easy to choose the mage side. For me anyway.

[tevikolady]

My point is, you 'over-hear' these things, but you don't exactly get to interract with them.

YOu get to encounter Huon (yes, that elf, thank you I couldn't remember his name), and kill him for his hideous use of Blood Magic.

You kill Evellina who turned to Blood Magic

You kill Decimus who turned to Blood Magic

You kill Grace who turned to Blood Magic.

You Quentin, that bastard who killed your mother, for using Blood Magic.

You can kill (or send Idunna to the circle) for turning to Blood Magic

You can kill Gascard for being a blood mage, or let him go.

You kill Taronhe for being a crazy blood mage.

You can kill Denarius who uses Blood Magic


LOTS of incidents of blood magic all over the game.    And I never went to the Dalish camp before, but I just recently read that on the wiki, before I read this post.

You kill the tempars harrassing the people supporting apostates.  You deal with Ser karras (I killed him) so I never knew baout the Alain incidents.  And you kill the death squads that are trying to ferret out Meredith opposers.  I get that, but you don't do any quests for them.  You *might* overhear it, but you don't really get involved in it, minus two or three occassions.

I think for every mage driven to blood magic, there should ahve been a templar quest that supported some kind of the templars have gone too far bit.  That was what I was trying to get at.

Back in Origins, I played the circle tower and came across the apprentice who view her gift as a curse.  I almost deleted my character when I came across that because it sickened me that the Chantry had brainwashed even mages into thinking the power they were BORN with was a curse, an evil vile thing.

IT WENT AGAINST EVERYTHING I BELIEVE IN!  Me, as in myself, not my character.

In a world where there IS magic, and people are BORN with it, then it is not a CRIME to have this power.  If you are born with it, then the Maker blessed you with it.  It is not an evil vile thing.  Like anything else in the world, your actions determine who you are.

For me, in DA2, it was not me vs the mages vs the Templars.  It was the chantry I did not condone.  It is the Chantry and how it views mages and Templar alike that I didn't like.

I practically cheered when I saw that Chantry blow up.  My eyes teared up and I almost kissed Anders on the spot.

sorry, I digress.

/rant off

[tevikolady]

AlexXIV wrote...

Counting beans will just lead you on the wrong way. You can't just say there have been so and so many templars and so and so many mages who were evil or being bad or whatever. I think the writers tried to give a feel of both sides. There isn't really a right side and wrong side. Templars have their points. Mages have their points. I think the resolution can only be a compromise or one of the two sides perishing.

The 'pre-war situation' is unbearable for mages and one of the big injustices and atrocities of Dragon Age. On the other hand we have the Tevinter Empire which teaches us that mages that go unchecked may be dangerous and foolish enough to cast curses as the Blight over the land which could at many times have been the end of all civilisations of Thedas.

I think what we are supposed to learn is that both sides do have merit, and both sides have their share of bad people who need to be stopped. However, the last decision to annull the Circle is unlawful. And no matter how angry or desperate the people of Kirkwall are, I can't get myself to support this kind of innocent slaying for a mad woman's paranoia. So it is actually Meredith who makes it easy to choose the mage side. For me anyway.

I agree.  Meredith went to far for me as well.  From the begining, you already know she is the true power behind Kirkwall, and that utter vile contemputous look she gvies you, when you usurp her as the Champion of Kirkwall, when you cast a shadow over her and all she'd 'done' to protect the city.

And when she refuses to let anyone take the role of Viscount, I was like "Who is you??  You're just a Templar, back off b***h!"

I had no desire to be Viscount, but I sure wasn't going to let her have the reigns.  I was second from putting fancy pants boy wonder in the seat.  IMHO, if the city has no authority over Templars, then Templars have no Divine authority who sits on the Viscounts seat.  That is for government officials to decide, not her.

It was easy for me to side with the Mages too.

[EmperorSahlertz]

It isn't a crime to be born with magic. But it can be viewed as a curse, especially by the mage himself. Forever will a mage be cursed to have to content with demons and his own powers. Being able to fling a fireball is all great and dandy when you are in combat. Whenever you are inside a wooden house, it might not be the greatest.
There are inherent dangers with magic, which is why it is considered by some to be a curse. Since it curses them to be unable to ever live a normal life.

[AlexXIV]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It isn't a crime to be born with magic. But it can be viewed as a curse, especially by the mage himself. Forever will a mage be cursed to have to content with demons and his own powers. Being able to fling a fireball is all great and dandy when you are in combat. Whenever you are inside a wooden house, it might not be the greatest.
There are inherent dangers with magic, which is why it is considered by some to be a curse. Since it curses them to be unable to ever live a normal life.

Obviously a world without magic would be easier to live in for everyone. One question about magic in DA for me is whether it is to be seen as a natural part of the world and life, or if it's mere existance is some sort of curse to begin with. I mean if it is part of the world you cannot remove it without breaking the world. If it is a curse you could remove it and the world goes on without magic. So if it's a curse we should try to remove it, but if it is a natural part of the world then we should learn to accept it as such and adapt our lives accordingly.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 01 novembre 2011 - 05:45 .

[LobselVith8]

@ReallyRue,

Kerras gives the order to his men (about the "pretty one") if Hawke is a woman and the confrontation leads to a fight. It's similar to Alrik threatening to rape the child mage Ella (as Bethany's letter identifies Ella as one of the children she teaches) in being somewhat indirect, although not overly so. You could probably see a video of the scene on the Internet where Kerras orders his men to leave a female Hawke for him.

As for Alain, it's random dialogue when Hawke sees him at the Gallows, but he subtly references this in his dialogue in Act III during "Best Served Cold" if Hawke asks why he sided with Ser Thrask.

@tevikolady, part of the problem is that the developers admitted they wanted to get more people to side with the templars. One developer admitted this is why Orsino deals with Quentin and turns into an abomination (to avoid the mage choice being the "good ending") and Gaider admitted that he felt too many people sided with the mages "almost by default."

However, I think their main failing in trying to be pro-templar is that Meredith's final choice is pretty much getting an entire Circle annulled because she wants to appease the mob - so it has nothing to do with blood magic, corruption, abominations, or anything of that sort because her consistent argument is that "the people will demand blood." The fact that she admits she'll enjoy this is what separates her from the remorseful Knight-Commander Greagoir, who reluctantly considered the Right of Annulment during Uldred's rebellion for reasons that actually made sense.

It's kind of sad that the developers did a much better job at conveying good templars in Origins - Ser Bryant, the Lothering templars, Ser Otto, and even Greagoir - than Dragon Age 2 did when that seemed to be part of their focus. Having a plethora of insane and stupid mages that don't make sense - i.e. Decimus thinking Hawke, Merrill, Fenris, and Varric are templars, or Grace wanting revenge against the man who rescued her, or anyone expecting me to believe that Tahrone could get anyone to work for her when she looks and acts like a crack addict, and is completely insane - isn't going to compel me to side with the templars. Especially when the final choice is about a genocidal lunatic who wants to appease a hypothetical mob by murdering hundreds of people who aren't responsible for the actions of one rogue Grey Warden mage.

[AlexXIV]

Well Gregoire even let the Warden go in, which was a pretty high risk because there was no way of knowing that the Warden could do what an entire host of templars failed to do. The only saving grace at this point was that the Warden was the protagonist and had his/her plotshield against demon corruption up. I mean if you look at it from Gregoire's perspective it was impossible that the Warden could succeed by any means. So letting him/her in was almost foolish if we are realistic because he'd lose a good fighter and maybe even strengthen the demons if they had managed to possess the Warden and his/her merry group of adventurers.

Maybe fair to mention here that the good thing about DA2 there is that at least such things were more realistic than in DA:O. I mean Hawke doesn't get to pull off such stunts, except maybe the one thing with the half-elven dreamer boy.

[tevikolady]

LobselVith8 wrote...



@tevikolady, part of the problem is that the developers admitted they wanted to get more people to side with the templars. One developer admitted this is why Orsino deals with Quentin and turns into an abomination (to avoid the mage choice being the "good ending") and Gaider admitted that he felt too many people sided with the mages "almost by default."

My thing was, I was pro-mage BECAUSE of Origins.  Origins, by far their masterpiece in terms of writing, had made me pro-mage from the get-go.  But even then, there were hints at abuse on the side of Templars, but mostly, I directed my angst at the Chantry.  I believe in God, and I warmed my heart that they tried to do a theology some due justice in the game, but as I searched more and more into the Chant of Light, it felt really wrong to me and I was disgusted and turned away from it.  I didn't run to the Qun, but I was horrified by the Chantry.  I already felt its corruptness, as a person.

That, and the view on mages was horrific. 

Templars are a symptom of that problem, as are mages. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

AlexXIV wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It isn't a crime to be born with magic. But it can be viewed as a curse, especially by the mage himself. Forever will a mage be cursed to have to content with demons and his own powers. Being able to fling a fireball is all great and dandy when you are in combat. Whenever you are inside a wooden house, it might not be the greatest.
There are inherent dangers with magic, which is why it is considered by some to be a curse. Since it curses them to be unable to ever live a normal life.

Obviously a world without magic would be easier to live in for everyone. One question about magic in DA for me is whether it is to be seen as a natural part of the world and life, or if it's mere existance is some sort of curse to begin with. I mean if it is part of the world you cannot remove it without breaking the world. If it is a curse you could remove it and the world goes on without magic. So if it's a curse we should try to remove it, but if it is a natural part of the world then we should learn to accept it as such and adapt our lives accordingly.

I don't think they view it as a literal curse, as if a witch had cursed the world to suffer magic, but more like a metaphorical curse, since magic will always taint your life, and it is inescapable. That is why it is referred to as a curse.

[AlexXIV]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It isn't a crime to be born with magic. But it can be viewed as a curse, especially by the mage himself. Forever will a mage be cursed to have to content with demons and his own powers. Being able to fling a fireball is all great and dandy when you are in combat. Whenever you are inside a wooden house, it might not be the greatest.
There are inherent dangers with magic, which is why it is considered by some to be a curse. Since it curses them to be unable to ever live a normal life.

Obviously a world without magic would be easier to live in for everyone. One question about magic in DA for me is whether it is to be seen as a natural part of the world and life, or if it's mere existance is some sort of curse to begin with. I mean if it is part of the world you cannot remove it without breaking the world. If it is a curse you could remove it and the world goes on without magic. So if it's a curse we should try to remove it, but if it is a natural part of the world then we should learn to accept it as such and adapt our lives accordingly.

I don't think they view it as a literal curse, as if a witch had cursed the world to suffer magic, but more like a metaphorical curse, since magic will always taint your life, and it is inescapable. That is why it is referred to as a curse.

Ok but you could view many things as a curse. And I would say they are people who have low self esteem and/or incapable to deal with what cards life deals them. I mean handling to be a mage certainly isn't easy, but it also has benefits. And being 'normal' doesn't guarantee an easy life either. I think I´d agree with Flemeth in this and embrace my destiny instead of trying to fight or run from it.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 01 novembre 2011 - 07:18 .

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...
... or Grace wanting revenge against the man who rescued her...

I agree with most of your post Lobsel, it's a rather good analysis of some of the problems in how the mages are presented. The story would have benefitted from some mages doing absolutely despicable things for rational and understandable reasons (or alternatively, better presented rational reasons).

But I disagree about Grace's revenge not making sense. It certainly does and very much so.

She hates Hawke for one of the most primal reasons there is: Hawke killed the man she loved.
She didn't leave Starkhaven because she wanted to be free. She left the circle because she wanted to be free -with- Decimus. When he was killed before her eyes it was the worst thing in her life. At the time, all she wanted was to get away. She didn't have time to reflect on her emotions. The survival instinct was in control.

But then her life began it's spiral down into what she thought of as hell. And at the same time, Hawke, rises to a position of not just fame but glory and reveration. From the moment Decimus died, her life went shooting downwards as Hawke's rose. She gets captured, you get rich. She suffers in the Kirkwall circle and you get to feast in a mansion.

Hatred and bitterness are -very- understandable emotions here. Even if Hawke isn't to blame directly, Hawke is a clear example of everything that went wrong with her life. If her life had turned out for the better, she might not have hated you. If you had died, she might have blamed Thrask or the fire instead.
But it and you didn't. Her life turned for the worse and you prospered (and were constantly in her face too, with your rise to fame). Hawke becoming champion and a great hero was just rubbing salt in the wounds.

Ultimately, I suspect that she only opposed Meredith as a means to get to you.

She should be grateful that Hawke saved her? By the end of her life, I wonder if she wouldn't rather have died than be "saved" by us.

Many mages suffer from a poor presentation/lacking proper motivations. But Grace is not one of them. She's not insane or deluded. Just human... and very angry.

[LobselVith8]

Sir JK wrote...

But I disagree about Grace's revenge not making sense. It certainly does and very much so.

Not when you consider that Grace gave Hawke a gift before she left, or turned to him for aid against the approaching templars. The fact that she thinks Hawke turned against her for getting caught years later (in Act II) cements the irrational and stupid behavior that mimics virtually every other mage antagonist in the narrative. If Grace wanted revenge against Hawke for killing Decimus, why wait six years later? Why give the man responsible for killing Decimus a gift as a token of gratitude instead?

[Xilizhra]

Ser Kerras also implies he wants to rape a female Hawke ("the pretty one")

I'm slightly surprised that's restricted to a female Hawke, given the implications involving Alain.

[Sir JK]

Because at that point she was full of hope for freedom and half paniced that the templars had caught up to her. Reflecting wasn't a top priority since she was mentally in a "running mode".

But that hate simmered and grew. Time just made it worse and worse. Hawke's successes (which happens over those six years) just made it all worse. Some wounds never heal, and some grow worse with time.

I don't think she planned much. But when chance came to lure Hawke into a trap. It was too good not to take.
Think of it like this. If your Hawke would have been able to get Meredith one on one. Would he/she not have reached for a knife?

EDIT: Oh! And she gives you a -mage- staff bearing the mark of -Starkhaven.. With the motivation "I don't -dare- to wear it anymore" (paraphrased). You know... a magestaff of the kind the templars are -looking for-.

Just how much of a "gift" is it really... when you think about it.

Modifié par Sir JK, 01 novembre 2011 - 07:59 .

[LobselVith8]

Considering that Grace confronts Hawke outside the Gallows, with his reputation reaching the denizens there that he has publicly opposed Meredith (if such a choice was made, since it is commented on by Knight-Captain Cullen and Ser Thrask), I doubt that freedom was an issue for Grace. It doesn't change that Grace gifted Hawke, which wasn't necessary if Grace was actually angry but simply wanted to leave. Why give a gift to a man if you secretly hate him? Even in "running mode," there isn't a reason for this.

While it's human to want revenge for a lost loved one, we never see Grace exhibit this when Decimus is dead. Or when Kerras and the templars are killed. Or when Grace gives Hawke a parting gift for his assistance to the Starkhaven mages. As far as I'm concerned, Grace's reasoning is still as asinine as Decimus, Tahrone, and Endgame Orsino.

[Gervaise]

I think the OP is right about the way they portrayed the mages in DA2. Certainly I went into the game in the same sort of mind set. What I saw in Origins made me feel that something wasn't quite right about the Circle set up - I thought Jowan's story was tragic because he clearly wasn't some power hungry crazy but simply wanted to be happy with Lily and then when he was caught out, he panicked and used blood magic, which led to him going on the run, being bribed by Loghain/Howe, although still believing he was serving his country, etc. When my mage Warden tried to let him go, he kept objecting saying he wanted to try and put right all what he had done wrong. I got the feeling that when the Warden told him she had no idea what had happened to Lily, he just sort of lost hope. When Jowan despaired of happiness, he still wanted to put right the things he had done and help the people he had hurt. Jowan alone convinced me that the Circle system was wrong because everything seemed to have happened to him because of the way the mages are treated and yet he was essentially a good person (despite the use of blood magic)

What a contrast with the majority of mages in DA2. For some reason, even when people seemed to be telling a sob story about how the Templars had treated them, it didn't win my sympathy. The reason for this was that this was constantly used as a justification for doing something equally bad, if not worse in retaliation. People threaten you so its okay to turn into an abomination. Templars hunt you so its okay to torture them into becoming possessed, Meredith has turned the screws so its okay to blood dominate the minds of other people and send them onto the streets to attack passers by and so on. There were bad Templars, don't get me wrong. It just seemed you were being asked to choose between one set of murderous, unethical, immoral group of people and another. And so far as I am concerned using the bomb was never justified, ever (and so far as the plot was concerned, it was unnecessary to advance it either, since there are plenty of other ways they could have got Meredith calling for the Rite of Annulment)

Then the final choice, which I saw simply as do I support the murder of a group of people who are innocent of the crime for which they are being killed, was transformed into a Thedas wide situation of being pro or anti mage freedom. And since the final showdown actually depended upon a magical artifact sending someone mad, all decisions were rendered void, since you were attacked whichever side you took.

Just one final point - the Chant of Light came from Andraste but the Chantry didn't. Read the Chant of Light and you discover it actually calls magic a gift of the maker. It only condemns as acursed those people who misuse it to harm others (like the Tevinter Magisters). It has a strong moral code that I fail to see how anyone could object to - don't harm people who have done you no harm, particularly if they are weaker than you are, don't lie and twist the truth, don't steal from people. However, the Orlesians jumped on the Andraste bandwagon and used her popularity to advance their own imperial aspirations, creating the Chantry as their state religion. If people truly followed the Chant of Light rather than the Chantry's warped interpretation of it, Thedas would be a much better place.

Anders, who bombs the Chantry, still believes in the Maker and Andraste, invoking them on the side of Hawke and himself in the Gallows at the end. Obviously he and I differ about how the Maker would view the bomb.

[jamesp81]

AlexXIV wrote...

Counting beans will just lead you on the wrong way. You can't just say there have been so and so many templars and so and so many mages who were evil or being bad or whatever. I think the writers tried to give a feel of both sides. There isn't really a right side and wrong side. Templars have their points. Mages have their points. I think the resolution can only be a compromise or one of the two sides perishing.

The 'pre-war situation' is unbearable for mages and one of the big injustices and atrocities of Dragon Age. On the other hand we have the Tevinter Empire which teaches us that mages that go unchecked may be dangerous and foolish enough to cast curses as the Blight over the land which could at many times have been the end of all civilisations of Thedas.

I think what we are supposed to learn is that both sides do have merit, and both sides have their share of bad people who need to be stopped. However, the last decision to annull the Circle is unlawful. And no matter how angry or desperate the people of Kirkwall are, I can't get myself to support this kind of innocent slaying for a mad woman's paranoia. So it is actually Meredith who makes it easy to choose the mage side. For me anyway.

The problem is that there is no chance of compromise between the two.  I also don't personally feel that the mages are morally obligated to seek such compromise at this point, as they have a great many legitimate casus belli against the templars.  If the mages so elect to continue to wage unrestricted warfare against the templars, they are completely justified at this point.

Anyway, the point is, the templars want a return to the status quo.  These terms are unacceptable to mages.   Therefore, there will be war until one side relents or one side utterly destroys the other.