1194 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir Pounce-a-lot]

I see your points. I think that Aveline had that knee-jerk reaction and wanted to side with Meredith at first. Actually, Anders didn't even use magic to blow us the chantry; just explosives.

[Silfren]

Sir Pounce-a-lot wrote...

I see your points. I think that Aveline had that knee-jerk reaction and wanted to side with Meredith at first. Actually, Anders didn't even use magic to blow us the chantry; just explosives.

But it's fairly evident from the cutscene that magic was involved: witness the sucking vortex that sucks up all the debris just before it expels it outward.  In fact a few people have stated that that scene made them believe that Anders rigged his explosive to do just that, to suck up the debris and force it outward in an attempt to minimize casualties.  Mind, I'm not making any statement one way or the other, but the fact is at least some people have taken the visuals from that scene to mean such. 

[Rinshikai]

That is an interesting observation Silfren.

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

But it's fairly evident from the cutscene that magic was involved: witness the sucking vortex that sucks up all the debris just before it expels it outward. In fact a few people have stated that that scene made them believe that Anders rigged his explosive to do just that, to suck up the debris and force it outward in an attempt to minimize casualties. Mind, I'm not making any statement one way or the other, but the fact is at least some people have taken the visuals from that scene to mean such.

Or just magical ingredients that anyone can use.

That the bomb may have had a magical aspect doesn't necessarily dictate that Anders used magic to make his bomb.

Considering that ingredients like Fire Crystals can create some pretty potent explosives, I find it more likely that what he used were magical ingredients in conjunction with common explosives material rather then him infusing it with some of his magic.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 24 avril 2012 - 02:55 .

[Sir Pounce-a-lot]

Modifié par Sir Pounce-a-lot, 24 avril 2012 - 08:52 .

[Sir Pounce-a-lot]

The ingredients to make the bomb seemed to imply chemistry. Regardless, the Circle mages were innocent. That scene would have been more powerful if the Chantry was full of people and not just priests. That should have showed entire families inside.

[LobselVith8]

Sir Pounce-a-lot wrote...

The ingredients to make the bomb seemed to imply chemistry. Regardless, the Circle mages were innocent. That scene would have been more powerful if the Chantry was full of people and not just priests. That should have showed entire families inside.

That's the crux of the situation. Hundreds of men, women, and children are condemned to death for the actions of a former Grey Warden who has never been a member of the Circle of Kirkwall. Meredith's only argument in annuling the Circle is to appease people who want the mages death; nothing more. Greagoir, at least, considered annulment as a means of keeping Ferelden safe from a horde abominations, because he genuinely thought the Circle was lost; Meredith simply wants to appease a hypothetical mob.

Also, killing people at night (when the Kirkwall Chantry seemed to be closed) implies that only members of the Chantry and the templars would be inside, as those are the only people we actually see in the cutscene inside the Chantry. When Hawke has entered the Chantry at night, there have never been civilians inside.

[TEWR]

Fact of the matter is: People were asleep at the time. There's no way for them to know that a Mage was responsible until they're told.

And even were they told and petitioning for all mages to die -- something I doubt they'd do --Meredith was the power at the time. She could've easily put down the mob and told them that the appropriate party would be held responsible: Anders.

You don't acquiesce to a mob's demands if you're the power in the state. You don't coddle them. Once you do that, you lose power.

IIRC, Anders on the Rivalry path will say something like "Come midnight, it won't matter" or something along those lines.

Though I've only Rivaled Anders once, so I'm not sure if that's right.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Silfren wrote...

But it's fairly evident from the cutscene that magic was involved: witness the sucking vortex that sucks up all the debris just before it expels it outward. In fact a few people have stated that that scene made them believe that Anders rigged his explosive to do just that, to suck up the debris and force it outward in an attempt to minimize casualties. Mind, I'm not making any statement one way or the other, but the fact is at least some people have taken the visuals from that scene to mean such.

Or just magical ingredients that anyone can use.

That the bomb may have had a magical aspect doesn't necessarily dictate that Anders used magic to make his bomb.

Considering that ingredients like Fire Crystals can create some pretty potent explosives, I find it more likely that what he used were magical ingredients in conjunction with common explosives material rather then him infusing it with some of his magic.

Hence my statement that "magic was involved."  

[Silfren]

Sir Pounce-a-lot wrote...

The ingredients to make the bomb seemed to imply chemistry. Regardless, the Circle mages were innocent. That scene would have been more powerful if the Chantry was full of people and not just priests. That should have showed entire families inside.

I don't know, I think that would have wrecked the whole attempt at creating a situation sufficiently grey to have people rather evenly split into two firm camps of whether Anders was or wasn't justified.  Part of the very reason many of us are able to sympathize with Anders' decision is very much because you don't see all that many innocents in the building.  People firmly convinced that Anders was totally wrong often do bring up the countless innocent orphans and homeless and other beleaguered souls taking refuge within the Chantry walls.  But you just don't SEE any of these supposed victims in there. 

It's the lack of being able to actually see any people in the Chantry beside the Grand Cleric and some templars when it explodes that permits the controversy to go on and on and on as it continually does.  It makes the claim that Anders was specifically targeting Chantry personnel and NOT innocents a valid, supported argument.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Fact of the matter is: People were asleep at the time. There's no way for them to know that a Mage was responsible until they're told.

And even were they told and petitioning for all mages to die -- something I doubt they'd do --Meredith was the power at the time. She could've easily put down the mob and told them that the appropriate party would be held responsible: Anders.

You don't acquiesce to a mob's demands if you're the power in the state. You don't coddle them. Once you do that, you lose power.

IIRC, Anders on the Rivalry path will say something like "Come midnight, it won't matter" or something along those lines.

Though I've only Rivaled Anders once, so I'm not sure if that's right.

Where?  When?  I wanna get that line!

When I'm done with DA2 I'll have two basic canon runs, one with a rivaled Anders and one without.  I actually hate rivaling Anders because of the screwy way the stupid approval system works, but I do appreciate that a rivaled Anders is struggling against Vengeance within him, rather than working in conjunction with it.

Modifié par Silfren, 24 avril 2012 - 07:58 .

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

Where? When? I wanna get that line!

When I'm done with DA2 I'll have two basic canon runs, one with a rivaled Anders and one without. I actually hate rivaling Anders because of the screwy way the stupid approval system works, but I do appreciate that a rivaled Anders is struggling against Vengeance within him, rather than working in conjunction with it.

I was playing a FemHawke at the time that romanced him, so it may be romance-specific. I can't tell you when it happened in Act 3, as it's been a very long time since I did the Rivalry path.

I detest rivaling Anders. Not because of what it does to him and Justice, but because of how it's poorly handled. I can be pro-mage and anti-Anders, yet he acts like I'm anti-mage in general.

When I could've been taking him with me on some of my pro-mage quest courses where he sees firsthand that I'm pro-mage.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Where? When? I wanna get that line!

When I'm done with DA2 I'll have two basic canon runs, one with a rivaled Anders and one without. I actually hate rivaling Anders because of the screwy way the stupid approval system works, but I do appreciate that a rivaled Anders is struggling against Vengeance within him, rather than working in conjunction with it.

I was playing a FemHawke at the time that romanced him, so it may be romance-specific. I can't tell you when it happened in Act 3, as it's been a very long time since I did the Rivalry path.

I detest rivaling Anders. Not because of what it does to him and Justice, but because of how it's poorly handled. I can be pro-mage and anti-Anders, yet he acts like I'm anti-mage in general.

When I could've been taking him with me on some of my pro-mage quest courses where he sees firsthand that I'm pro-mage.

That's exactly what I hate about the rivalry system.  I made this a point on one of those "wishes for DA3" threads.  I don't see why the game can't be designed to recognize the actual reasons for a companion hating or liking the PC based on actual choices and dialogues, rather than defaulting to two either/or options.  I mean, we know that the game CAN recognize and respond to specific dialogue bits, major and even minor ones.  So why can't the approval system be designed the same way? 

I should have been able to roleplay a moderate mage who disagreed with Anders' extremism while still wanting to live free.  Or just a mage who believed wholeheartedly in Anders' cause but rather disliked his hypocrisy and abusive attitude toward Merril and Fenris.  But the game translates it ALL into "OMG YOU HATE MAGES."

[Sir Pounce-a-lot]

The Chantry supposedly houses orphans and the needy. It could easily offer nightly services. Besides, at the time that it happens, Hawke has no idea how many people were inside. Either way, a lot of priests were killed, and probably other people too. Blowing up the Chantry would have had a stronger impact if it was full of people, and if it let you see them right before they die. Bioware might not have wanted too much of a terrorism factor in one of their games. It would have been really powerful stuff though, but a lot of parents might not have wanted their kids playing the game. I suppose that it was an act of terrorism either way; just a lower bodycount.

Modifié par Sir Pounce-a-lot, 24 avril 2012 - 08:52 .

[TEWR]

Sir Pounce-a-lot wrote...

The Chantry supposedly houses orphans and the needy. It could easily offer nightly services. Besides, at the time that it happens, Hawke has no idea how many people were inside. Either way, a lot of priests were killed, and probably other people too. Blowing up the Chantry would have had a stronger impact if it was full of people.

No it wouldn't. It still would've been the actions of an apostate that was never once a part of the Circle of Kirkwall.

All it would do is make Anders deserve the hangman's noose even more, but it wouldn't have done anything to make the situation morally grey.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Sir Pounce-a-lot wrote...

The Chantry supposedly houses orphans and the needy. It could easily offer nightly services. Besides, at the time that it happens, Hawke has no idea how many people were inside. Either way, a lot of priests were killed, and probably other people too. Blowing up the Chantry would have had a stronger impact if it was full of people.

No it wouldn't. It still would've been the actions of an apostate that was never once a part of the Circle of Kirkwall.

All it would do is make Anders deserve the hangman's noose even more, but it wouldn't have done anything to make the situation morally grey.

No, it would have made it LESS morally grey, and made it much, much easier not to sympathize with Anders.  I don't understand why having more people in the Chantry would have made the scene more powerful. 

It's plenty powerful on its own.  Having more people inside, especially people that were obvious, visually, marked as Chantry supplicants rather than personnel, would simply have made the question of whether it was unjustified terrorism or a justified act of war far less divisive than it already is. 

[Sir Pounce-a-lot]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Sir Pounce-a-lot wrote...

The Chantry supposedly houses orphans and the needy. It could easily offer nightly services. Besides, at the time that it happens, Hawke has no idea how many people were inside. Either way, a lot of priests were killed, and probably other people too. Blowing up the Chantry would have had a stronger impact if it was full of people.

No it wouldn't. It still would've been the actions of an apostate that was never once a part of the Circle of Kirkwall.

All it would do is make Anders deserve the hangman's noose even more, but it wouldn't have done anything to make the situation morally grey.

It wasn't "morally grey" either way. Is there any rational justification for killing innocent people that had nothing to do with a crime?  Meredith was clearly wrong, but a more horrific and terrible act by Anders might have created more sympathy for Meredith's case.  Meredith is wrong, but just imagine the horror of seeing dead babies being pulled from the rubble!  After 9/11, Americans were out for blood, and went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, even though they had nothing to do with it.  Were those wars really about justice?  No, but Americans suspended their logic and reason, and felt completely justified in doing so. They blamed all Muslims, which was wrong. But it happened. 

[Silfren]

Sir Pounce-a-lot wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Sir Pounce-a-lot wrote...

The Chantry supposedly houses orphans and the needy. It could easily offer nightly services. Besides, at the time that it happens, Hawke has no idea how many people were inside. Either way, a lot of priests were killed, and probably other people too. Blowing up the Chantry would have had a stronger impact if it was full of people.

No it wouldn't. It still would've been the actions of an apostate that was never once a part of the Circle of Kirkwall.

All it would do is make Anders deserve the hangman's noose even more, but it wouldn't have done anything to make the situation morally grey.

It wasn't "morally grey" either way. Is there any rational justification for killing innocent people that had nothing to do with a crime?  Meredith was clearly wrong, but a more horrific and terrible act by Anders might have created more sympathy for Meredith's case.  Meredith is wrong, but just imagine the horror of seeing dead babies being pulled from the rubble!  After 9/11, Americans were out for blood, and went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, even though they had nothing to do with it.  Were those wars really about justice?  No, but Americans suspended their logic and reason, and felt completely justified in doing so. They blamed all Muslims, which was wrong. But it happened. 

It isn't something I personally agree with, but yes, I actually CAN see legitimate reasons for siding with Meredith, especially after reading certain persons' well-conceived reasons for doing so.  There IS reason for Meredith to believe that Anders had inside help, and we ARE shown that Meredith was right in her suspicions of blood magic when Orsino himself resorts to it.  The flip side is that you can roleplay that Hawke didn't want to annul the mages, and didn't think they were connected with Anders' action, but believed that it was NECESSARY to restore order.  You can come up with plausible reasons to go along with the Annulment even without believing the mages deserve to be killed. 

Sorry, but no.  The number of people in the Chantry has no bearing whatsoever on the guilt, actual or merely perceived, of the Circle mages.  If you're arguing that there's no rational justification for Meredith to Annul the Circle, then you cannot use there being MORE people in the Chantry to justify it.  The Circles are either guilty, or they are not, and the number of people in the Chantry should have no bearing on that at all. 

I'm not sure why you think there needs to be more sympathy for Meredith's position.  It's pretty evident that a lot of people DID side with her.  Plenty of people have reported supporting Meredith and the templars on scores of threads here since DA2's release.  And you think tons of people don't already think what Anders did was horrific and terrible?  Don't read the forum threads much, do you?

Anders' blowing up of the Chantry is meant to be ambiguous as to whether it was justified or not.  Having tons of obviously-innocent people inside it would have totally wrecked that moral ambiguity.  It is an extremely powerful scene as is.

Modifié par Silfren, 24 avril 2012 - 09:22 .

[Sir Pounce-a-lot]

There is no rational reason to support Meredith. Killing people for a crime that they did not commit has no legitimate excuse at all. A Chantry full of people would have created a much stronger emotional impact, and aside from emotion-based thinking, there is no reason to support Meredith at all. You didn't even know about Orsino's blood magic until he flips out on you well into the battle. Regardless, what about all the Circle mages that aren't into blood magic?

Regardless, Anders needs to be executed.

Modifié par Sir Pounce-a-lot, 24 avril 2012 - 09:32 .

[Cantina]

I must be the only one in the DA world that supports what Anders did; I even made s’mores over the smoldering remains of The Chantry. Would have BBQ chicken, but that would have taken too long.

[Ianamus]

However bad the gallows may have been just look at Krikwall, there are literally blood mages everywhere. There is no Wynne to show that Mages can be tempered and controlled, no Morrigan to show that even Apostates can avoid the temptation of blood magic and explore other routes like shapeshifting. Every Mage companion in DA2 made some bad choices, however well-founded, and both gave in to temptation at one point or another. And they are the best cases. All other mages in Kirkwall are off the rails, with the possible exception of Bethany, who doesn't even want to be a mage. 

Could you see the first enchanter Irving in the first game using blood magic, even if a Meredith equivalent enacted the right of anuulment? I couldn't, and that's becuase the first game made it clear that mages were reasonable, realistic people who had at least an ounce of self-control. However desperate the Mages in DA2 may have been think of how close the Darkspawn came to conquering Ferelden, and even then most mages in origins did not resort to blood magic, with an entire country at risk, becuase that's how dangerous it is. In Origins one blood mage nearly wipes out an entire town, while in DA2 it seems to be on every street corner. 

Honestly, In my opinion it was too easy to side with the templars. The majority seemed like reasonable people who were forced into extreme action to protect Kirkwall, and as I said earlier: considering how many blood/rebel magees there were in Kirkwall had the gallows not been in place it would have been a lot worse. You can say that had mages not been prosecuted they would have not fought so hard, but if people in real life could control people and make others blood boil you know that those abilities would be abused by people, and that lynch-mobbing would be incredibly common. In many ways the gallows protects the mages from the residents of Kirkwall as much as it does the other way around. 

I have nothing against mages, just the way Dragon Age 2 overuses bloodmages and villifies mages in general. In Origins they were incredibly sympathetic, had self control and governed themseleves in a circle that seemed a decent enough place to live, if essentially a prison, and only a minority ever resorted to blood magic, even in dire circumstances. In dragon Age 2 I feel that they went too far in the opposite direction.

Modifié par EJ107, 24 avril 2012 - 09:39 .

[Silfren]

Cantina wrote...

I must be the only one in the DA world that supports what Anders did; I even made s’mores over the smoldering remains of The Chantry. Would have BBQ chicken, but that would have taken too long.

No, I supported what he did.  Probably not quite as gleefully, but still. 

[Cantina]

Silfren wrote...

Cantina wrote...

I must be the only one in the DA world that supports what Anders did; I even made s’mores over the smoldering remains of The Chantry. Would have BBQ chicken, but that would have taken too long.

No, I supported what he did.  Probably not quite as gleefully, but still. 

Woohooo! We should start a club! I'll bring the Cheetos

[TEWR]

Sir Pounce-a-lot wrote...


It wasn't "morally grey" either way.

I know it's not morally grey. I never said it was. I've said that it wasn't morally grey numerous times in the past. It never was in DAII, despite Bioware's very ******-poor attempts at trying to do so. It could've been, but it wasn't because of how they handled and botched the story.

But you're saying Anders' actions would've been better for the story if he blew up a Chantry full of civilians. That doesn't change anything about the situation other then how much Anders deserves the hangman's noose.

So again, saying Anders' actions would've been better if he blew up more people doesn't do anything in terms of the bigger picture and the storyline it embodies.

All it does is cheapen the story even more.

Silfren wrote...

No, it would have made it LESS morally grey, and made it much, much easier not to sympathize with Anders.  I don't understand why having more people in the Chantry would have made the scene more powerful. 

It's plenty powerful on its own.  Having more people inside, especially people that were obvious, visually, marked as Chantry supplicants rather than personnel, would simply have made the question of whether it was unjustified terrorism or a justified act of war far less divisive than it already is. 

Additionally, this.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 24 avril 2012 - 09:48 .