177 réponses à ce sujet

[Craverguy]

Having played the game through twice now, I believe I have put my finger on what, precisely, bothers me about the ending.

This is a game that's all about moral ambiguity and gray vs. grey morality (the templars are dictatorial, but then again the mages are quick on the draw with blood magic, etc.), but to me, the ending just sort of tosses all that out the window. Reasonable people can disagree over whether the Circle system is a necessary sacrifice of liberty to ensure security, or whether freedom for all is worth the potential cost of abandoning it, but that's not the choice that "The Last Straw" presents you with.

After Anders blows up the Chantry, Meredith decides to invoke the Right of Annulment and have every mage in the Kirkwall Circle executed. Now, Anders acted alone; the Circle had nothing to do with his crime. Meredith knows that and so does Hawke. But she's going to massacre them all simply because the people will want blood and she's going to give it to them (this is the actual argument she makes to persuade you to join her).

Now, I hate to break it to BioWare, but there's nothing morally ambiguous going on here. Collective punishment is wrong. Slaughtering dozens of innocent people to punish someone else's crime is wrong. This isn't justice, it's a pogrom. If Hawke is willing to go along with it, he/she is not a good person. And that royally screws the whole "morality kitchen sink" angle they were going for.

[EricHVela]

I think they did a poor job of showing how both sides were wrong. It ends up being one party getting backed into a corner and panicking, making it largely the fault of the other party overreacting (due to insanity as we find out later) to some solitary revolutionary extremist.

[terdferguson123]

In my opinion, I feel like DA2 gives the player ample reason to believe that siding with the Templar's could be a correct choice. After all, the majority of mages that you meet throughout the game turn to blood magic and or are murderers.

My point is that if a particular Hawke decided that mages deserved the right of annulment, then I wouldn't say that they are entirely wrong in their decision. Do I agree with it? No, but I can see the point of it.

[Xilizhra]

ReggarBlane wrote...

I think they did a poor job of showing how both sides were wrong. It ends up being one party getting backed into a corner and panicking, making it largely the fault of the other party overreacting (due to insanity as we find out later) to some solitary revolutionary extremist.

I'm fairly sure this was deliberate. Only one of the sides was truly wrong. I believe it came across perfectly well, really, and quite like how the ending was put together. Except for Orsino, which was silly.

Now, I hate to break it to BioWare, but there's nothing morally
ambiguous going on here. Collective punishment is wrong. Slaughtering
dozens of innocent people to punish someone else's crime is wrong. This
isn't justice, it's a pogrom. If Hawke is willing to go along with it,
he/she is not a good person. And that royally screws the whole "morality kitchen sink" angle they were going for.

Again, I find it difficult to believe that the templars weren't the intentional villains of the piece here, just ones you could side with, because you aren't forced to be a good person.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 28 août 2012 - 05:28 .

[Fiacre]

terdferguson123 wrote...


In my opinion, I feel like DA2 gives the player ample reason to believe that siding with the Templar's could be a correct choice. After all, the majority of mages that you meet throughout the game turn to blood magic and or are murderers.

My point is that if a particular Hawke decided that mages deserved the right of annulment, then I wouldn't say that they are entirely wrong in their decision. Do I agree with it? No, but I can see the point of it.

Even the six year old children that have just been discovered to be mages? Meredith, at least, is clearly wrong. And her argument how the people will want retribution makes me wish there was a "punch her in the face" option as an answer. Or at least a better retort. I mean, sure, Meredith, give the bloodthirsty mob what it wants, that's always a good idea.

I suppose you could make a case for Hawke being for keeping Circle system and trying to stop the rebellion that eventually happens right there, but still disagreeing with Meredith's methods, but I wouldn't consider that a particularly strong case. Meredith and the pro-Templar side clearly come across as the villains.

i also agree that how Orsino was handled was silly. Had him becoming a boss when you're pro Mage at least made sense... I'd rather had a boss fight less, or a boss fight against some random pride demon of doom or something then that. Story and characterization > boss fights for me. (It's not even a particularly fun boss fight.)

[Dave of Canada]

There's many reasons Hawke could potentially side with the Templar at that moment, some don't even have to do with the actions of Anders. My character justifies the slaughter of the Circle as something which was inevitably coming, as evidenced by the blood mage gangs roaming the streets and everyone going bat**** insane over the years and that the actions of Anders simply triggers the slaughter--which is practically Meredith's reasoning too.

More reasonings I've used on various characters:
Siding with the Templar because you want to end the chaos as quickly as possible to protect the people. (Diplomatic Pro-Mage Hawke)
Siding with the Templar because you don't want to commit suicide by fighting an entire army of lyrium-addicted soldiers within their own fortress (Sarcastic Indifferent Hawke)
Siding with the Templar because you genuinly believe it's in the mage's best interests in the long-term, as the Kirkwall rebellion would simply cause more trouble than it's worth. (Diplomatic Mage Hawke)

I've only sided with the mages once and I can't bother to do it again.

[Xilizhra]

Which, I suspect, will all turn out to be wrong in the next game, when the templars will be the Cerberus-esque main villains. Or so it seems to me.

[Dave of Canada]

We all understand that you don't like moral ambiguity, Xil.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 28 août 2012 - 06:31 .

[Craverguy]

As I said, there is no moral ambiguity. Killing innocent people to punish them for a crime they weren't involved in is not moral by any stretch of the imagination. It might be expedient or safe, but not moral.

Modifié par Craverguy, 28 août 2012 - 06:36 .

[Xilizhra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

We all understand that you don't like moral ambiguity, Xil.

Oh, ambiguity there can be, in many other areas. Such as mages vs. Chantry.

[Sajuro]

My problem was that it was so sudden

[dragonflight288]

My main problem was that it was rushed and poorly implemented. At the time of us giving the choice, there is no moral reason to support the templars. There are plenty of pragmatic reasons, but no moral ones. Each gamer is different, and may interpret the situation differently.

But what is abundantly clear is pretty simple. Meredith was trying to appease a hypothetical mob with the Right of Annulment, but she was pushing for it anyway as Kerras outright states Meredith was trying to go over Elthina's head and appealing directly to the Divine. Gaider even said that if Meredith survived, the Divine would put her under extreme scrutiny as she felt the Right of Annulment under those circumstances was uncalled for.

[Renmiri1]

I think the Last Straw decision mirrors the main dilemma of the Circle / Templar Chantry situation.

You are being forced to punish innocent people for the acts of a madman.
Mages are forced into Circles and horrid treatmant by templars because of the acts of a few madmen.

In both cases, we don't know if all mages are innocent. They may be innocent of that particular crime - blowing up the Chantry - but who can say they have not dabbled on blood magic ? Who can say they won't if cornered ?

It is a no brainer in our culture, where most countries adopt the "innocent until proven guilty" code of law and civility. But on Thedas mages are "guilty until proven innocent" for their entire lives.

We all know proving a negative is impossible, so we know the only way a mage can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he/she will not be tempted and possessed is for him/her to die without being possessed. And it seems death is the only proof some lyrium addled templars and Knight commanders will accept. Which is absurd and a no brainer, as you said.

The Last Straw decision only makes things more clear to the player, but the reasoning behind both situations is the same. You can't enslave people for sins they have not committed yet. There has to be another way.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 28 août 2012 - 09:34 .

[MichaelStuart]

My only real problem with the ending was there was no third option to just walk away.

[dragonflight288]

MichaelStuart wrote...

My only real problem with the ending was there was no third option to just walk away.

Anders specifically blew up the Chantry with Elthina in it to prevent a third option. And Meredith forced Hawkes hand into choosing a side.

Poorly implemented, but if it was done well, it could've been better.

Say Hawke decides to opt and goes home. Once home, is later attacked. The group that attacks is dependent on Hawkes action up to that point. If largely pro-mage, it is the templars who attack Hawke, and vice-versa. Hawke has some companion dialogue and then joins the side (s)he had supported up to that point.

[Renmiri1]

I like it better more clear cut, like it is in the game.

After all, you spent 3 acts hearing Anders and Fenris whine about it, might as well have thought about the mage x templar problem and have come to a decision before hand. Even if it is varric's decision: "I'll go where my friends go".

Modifié par Renmiri1, 28 août 2012 - 09:48 .

[Treacherous J Slither]

People that defend the Templars puzzle me.

"A mage blew up the Chantry! Let's kill all the mages!"

Why didn't anyone try to kill all the Qunari after they attacked the city? These guys were walking around afterwards among the populace and no one seemed to care.

Where's the rallying cry against the hordes of bandits that are attacking people in the streets every single night?

[dragonflight288]

JSlither wrote...

People that defend the Templars puzzle me.

"A mage blew up the Chantry! Let's kill all the mages!"

Why didn't anyone try to kill all the Qunari after they attacked the city? These guys were walking around afterwards among the populace and no one seemed to care.

Where's the rallying cry against the hordes of bandits that are attacking people in the streets every single night?

The qunari were no longer being seen as challenging the Chantry's authority and bandits aren't hated by virtue of their skills like mages are. There isn't a huge religious dogma associated with them. Er...in the case of the Qunari, there's far less history than mages (Tevinter.)

[SeptimusMagistos]

Craverguy wrote...
Collective punishment is wrong.

Yes it is. That's what the mages have been saying. Imprisoning all of them because a few of them might abuse their power or go insane is wrong. Killing everyone regardless of guilt or innocence is just one step down from imprisoning them all for life.

[AbsoluteApril]

JSlither wrote...
Why didn't anyone try to kill all the Qunari after they attacked the city? These guys were walking around afterwards among the populace and no one seemed to care.

Where's the rallying cry against the hordes of bandits that are attacking people in the streets every single night?

Also, doesn't Maraas (the Kossith at the Hanged Man in act3) mention that the majority of the Quanari were slain and/or driven away after the results in Act2?

Re; Bandits- there were people who would reward you for taking care of the night bandits. People complained to the guards. Perhaps the pressure from the bandit groups kept the general populace quiet (like how people will not testify against gangs here in the US for fear of revenge being taken against thier familiy members)? just a thought.

[CELL55]

The problem that arises when both sides are petty and evil, is that I get all apathetic. "How about all you nug-lickers kill each other off and leave me, my friends, and the rest of the beautiful people alone?" I ask the game. Somehow, I doubt apathy is the emotion that the writers were trying to evoke.

TVTropes calls this Darkness Induced Apathy, for that is exactly what I felt. If both sides are jerks, I don't WANT to choose between them.

I settled on supporting mages because they have a snappier fashion sense. Fun, fun.

[Renmiri1]

CELL55 wrote...

The problem that arises when both sides are petty and evil, is that I get all apathetic. "How about all you nug-lickers kill each other off and leave me, my friends, and the rest of the beautiful people alone?" I ask the game. Somehow, I doubt apathy is the emotion that the writers were trying to evoke.

TVTropes calls this Darkness Induced Apathy, for that is exactly what I felt. If both sides are jerks, I don't WANT to choose between them.

I settled on supporting mages because they have a snappier fashion sense. Fun, fun.

It is hard and takes skill to write a good nuanced conflict without making one side obviosly "good" and the other obviously "evil".  I loved DA2 because in my case they pulled it off.  Templars were just justified enough to earn my sympathy and certain mages were just evil enough to earn my hate.

I never got into "Darkness Induced Apathy" with DA2 but I can see where other people would. In my case having romanced Anders made me chose Mage and romancing Fenris made me go Templar. I also had an Isabella romace where I wanted to leave on her new ship and let the damn mages and templars go sod themselves! 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 30 août 2012 - 03:16 .

[Huntress]

Mine was fighting against who ever i choose to side with.. really?? What the heck was that!!??%$#$%. meh.

It doens't matter who or why I have choosen one side over another, what matters is if it made sense for this character to do so and if it fit the story. I am pro-mage person still i believe there are a few good templars out there, templars who do not deserve to get hit by Anders lightnings

[philippe willaume]

Well moral choices is kind of what the game was about or (may be try to be about)
so there reasons to side with the mage or with the Templar.
through the act I and two they both have shown good and bad side. so you can find "arguments" that supports whatever side.

for me the main nag is that the Templar side was not well represented, You have only a few good dudes in a bunch that is nothing more than wannabe Einsatzgruppen in armour.
you don't really have a chance to meet Meredith before she is starting not to be herself.
At lest for the mage it is implied that the majority is staying relatively restrained.

outside Hawke family, you have two mages in your group but no templars.

that being said Orsino losing it when you are clearly winning, Anders pyrotechnics, which actually makes sense if rivalry but is kind of lame for the friendship /romance side.

now I think that Act III did not have the same story development than act II, so really the player or the character does not have that much at stake or have that much emotional involvment with the topic at hand.

phil

[CELL55]

To me, the groups just seemed to similar for me to make a meaningful choice, they were both just plain nuts. I just don't find the choice to be well implemented.

SPOILER AHEAD for The Witcher 2: At the end of Act 3, if you have sided so far with Roche, you can either help your buddy Roche take revenge on the man who killed off his military unit of close friends while simultaneously rescuing the heir to his kingdom that he is honor-bound to protect, or you can go and save your girl friend from the evil empire, but you can't do both. My point being, that there are benefits and drawbacks to both choices and that both are very different.

This is what I felt was lacking in DA2, by the end game, all of the reasonable and sane people had been killed off, leaving only sociopathic jerks to fight it out. And then, no matter if you choose Bad Guy A or Bad Guy B, the game plays out the same way: you kill Orsino, and then you kill Meredith. There just didn't seem to be any meaningful difference, which caused me to feel, as I have stated previously, apathetic.