87 réponses à ce sujet

[Todd23]

Her companion quest

You've gained enough trust from her to unlock her companion quest: Find the warden. Once unlocked There's a random encounter and a zombie looking magister approaches you. He is carrying Vigilance. Vigilance speaks through the man and tells you that this man is to weak to wield him, and that the blade would like to test your strength. After the battle the blade excepts you as being worthy of wielding it, and so long as you have it, it has party banter that only you can hear. And when faced with someone powerful you can feel the blades blood-lust. But after obtaining it, a new map marker is unlocked marked "Grey Warden". Going there will cause some dialogue with the warden, as he offers a reward for his lost blade. If you give it to him or tell him that it doesn't know if he's worthy, it will cause a fight, one so difficult that you're not expected to win. Like the fight with Ser Cauthrien at the estate. If you lose the warden thanks you, takes his blade, and will join you for the final boss fight. If you win, the blade won't except him so you get to keep it. And you can 1 - extort him for a lot of gold 2 - kill him and loot whatever equipment your warden had at the end of your save file 3 - Let him go, in which case he joins you at the boss fight or 4 - Bring him to Cassandra, which during her interrogation you find out some cool DA lore.

[General User]

LobselVith8 wrote...

General User wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Cassandra thinks Hawke can stop the war. Where's the sense in such asinine behavior?

Hawke was at the centre of things when they started.  If anyone can stop the war, he can.  Where or who would be your first stop if you wanted to stop the war?

The idea that one single man can stop a continental revolution is nonsensical.

First off I'm genuinely curious to see your answer to my question.  Where or who would be your first stop if you wanted to stop the war?

In any case, remeber that scene from Batman where Jim Gordon says "You're just one man?" and Batman replies "Now we're two."?  Well, in Cassandra and Hawke's case, between Cassandra's and Leliana's Seeker forces, and Hawke's own merry little band of ne'er-do-wells it more like "Now we're two... dozen of the best fighters, most powerful mages, most devious spies, and one of the influential public figures in Thedas."  Not a bad start by any means.   

If this is an example of how useful Cassandra will be, the protagonist would be better off killing her from the start.

Since Cassandra in DA2 served as a voice of moderation and reason, killing her right off the bat would be a good way to establish DA3 as a screaming match between fanatics.  Could be... interesting.

Modifié par General User, 15 septembre 2012 - 01:59 .

[LobselVith8]

General User wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The idea that one single man can stop a continental revolution is nonsensical.

First off I'm genuinely curious to see your answer to my question.  Where or who would be your first stop if you wanted to stop the war?

In any case, remeber that scene from Batman where Jim Gordon says "You're just one man?" and Batman replies "Now we're two."?  Well, in Cassandra and Hawke's case, between Cassandra's and Leliana's Seeker forces, and Hawke's own merry little band of ne'er-do-wells it more like "Now we're two... dozen of the best fighters, most powerful mages, most devious spies, and one of the influential public figures in Thedas."  Not a bad start by any means.

Because millions of people will give up their ideological struggle for freedom because Hawke thinks it isn't a good idea.

General User wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If this is an example of how useful Cassandra will be, the protagonist would be better off killing her from the start.

Since Cassandra in DA2 served as a voice of moderation and reason, killing her right off the bat would be a good way to establish DA3 as a screaming match between fanatics.  Could be... interesting.

Could be the first step towards maintaining mage autonomy, and not capitulating to the templars or the Chantry.

[General User]

Ophir147 wrote...

General User wrote...
What makes Cassandra so special is that she doesn't have any major flaws, defects, or suspect "tendencies", she was just a smart, incredibly attractive, woman who was consistently trying to do the right thing.  Many characters in Dragon Age do indeed fall short compared to Cassandra, but that's their fault.

That would be great if I believed that Bioware could actually make a relatively sane character seem appealing, but unfortunately I don't. That might not be a bad thing, because with the way RPG companion mechanics work, you have to leave most companion characterization in their backstory (Zev, Leliana, Alistair), their quirks (Morrigan, Shale, Oghren) and their beliefs (Sten and the entire freaking cast of DA2)*.

As it stands right now, Cassandra (in terms of characterization and being interesting), is about as interesting as any "rando-background-npc" in Skyrim.

I believe she has potential to be more interesting of course, but you wouldn't want that because you don't like "flawed characters." Besides, the phrase "flawed characters" is such a loaded word. I prefer "tragic heroes."

*Examples, of course, and not an exhaustive list.

Flawed characters have their place, it's just that after, as you put might it, "the entire freaking cast of DA2", having sensible, level-headed, people as companions (like we had in Origins) would be a refreshing and welcome return.

Modifié par General User, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:36 .

[General User]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Because millions of people will give up their ideological struggle for freedom because Hawke thinks it isn't a good idea.

You might be surprised.  Many (though certainly not "all") of the rebel Templars might be ideologues, but the overall purpose of having Circles (to protect the general public from dangerous magic and mages) remains a valid one and many of the mage's demands are actually quite reasonable.  If enough people with gravitas, people like Hawke, start advocating calmness and a return to reason, it just might be enough to take the wind out of the sails of the extremists (on both sides) and give cooler heads a chance to prevail.

So don't think of it as "giving up the struggle" or whatever, so much as stepping back and seeing if we can't come to some sort of arrangement before the qunari or the darkspawn or Maker knows what else decides the time is right to take everyone out..

Would you perhaps go to the Divine or King Alistair if you wanted to stop the war?  I can see the merit in both those.

LobselVith8 wrote...

General User wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If this is an example of how useful Cassandra will be, the protagonist would be better off killing her from the start.

Since Cassandra in DA2 served as a voice of moderation and reason, killing her right off the bat would be a good way to establish DA3 as a screaming match between fanatics.  Could be... interesting.

Could be the first step towards maintaining mage autonomy, and not capitulating to the templars or the Chantry.

It's never easy having to deal with fanatics, is it?

Modifié par General User, 15 septembre 2012 - 03:43 .

[LobselVith8]

General User wrote...

You might be surprised.  Many (though certainly not "all") of the rebel Templar's might be ideologues, but many of the mage's demands are actually quite reasonable and the overall purpose of having Circles (to protect the general public from dangerous magic and mages) remains a valid one.   If enough people with gravitas, people like Hawke, start advocating calmness and a return to reason, it just might be enough to take the wind out of the sails of the extremists (on both sides) and give cooler heads a chance to prevail.

So don't think of it as "giving up the struggle" or whatever, so much as stepping back and seeing if we can't come to some sort of arrangement before the qunari or the darkspawn or Maker knows what else decides the time is right to take everyone out.. 

Would you perhaps go to the Divine or King Alistair if you wanted to stop the war?  I can see the merit in both those.

One person can't force millions of people not to fight for their ideological views, especially for a confrontation that's been escalating to the breaking point for nearly a thousand years. Is it reasonable? I think it's reasonable for people to want freedom over subjugation. And the templars want to dominate mages, while the mages want freedom from the Chantry and the templars. I don't see the compromise when both groups want the opposite of the other.

General User wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Could be the first step towards maintaining mage autonomy, and not capitulating to the templars or the Chantry.

It's never easy having to deal with fanatics, is it?

Depends on who you see as fanatics, I suppose.

[Renmiri1]

@General User - Why am I not surprised you like Cassandra for LI ?

Tehehehe. You and I have the exact opposite taste on LI. Cassandra to me is ewwwww! But at least you didn't go for Meredith! 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 15 septembre 2012 - 04:16 .

[General User]

LobselVith8 wrote...

One person can't force millions of people not to fight for their ideological views,

You're actually not that far from getting it, just lose the hyperbole.

You see, while "one person can't force millions of people not to fight for their ideological views,"  The right influential people with the right backing most certainly can convince warring factions to attempt to resolve their differences without ripping each other and probably everyone around them to pieces.  That's what Cassandra's plan seems to be: to put together those right people and give them that right backing before it's too late for everyone.  It's audacious certainly, and probably is something of a long shot too.  But if it can spare Thedas a war as devastating as the Mage-Templar War might be, or even just ameliorate the worst of it, it's a chance worth taking.

especially for a confrontation that's been escalating to the breaking point for nearly a thousand years.

It's far more correct to say that the Mage-Templar conflict has been simmering for nearly a thousand years, ie flaring up at times and places and settling down in others.  That's an important distinction because it suggests that reasoned reform may yet be a workable and (as always) preferable solution compared to violent revolution.
 

Is it reasonable? I think it's reasonable for people to want freedom over subjugation. And the templars want to dominate mages, while the mages want freedom from the Chantry and the templars. I don't see the compromise when both groups want the opposite of the other.

Now this really makes me question whether you understand the viewpoints of any of the moderates, Templars or mages.  As Knight-Captain Cullen might say, the purpose of the Templar Order is not to "dominate" or "subjugate" anyone but rather to protect the public from dangerous magic.  And, ironically enough, as the Awakening version of Anders might tell you, most mages are really just asking to be treated as humanely as possible, of which an official sort of "freedom" is only part.  Neither of those is unreasonable and don't necessarily conflict with one another. 

Depends on who you see as fanatics, I suppose.

For a start, people who would rather grind ideological axes on each other's faces than actually resolve the issues between them.   Especially when there are wolves at the door.

[General User]

Renmiri1 wrote...

@General User - Why am I not surprised you like Cassandra for LI ?

Tehehehe. You and I have the exact opposite taste on LI. Cassandra to me is ewwwww! But at least you didn't go for Meredith! 

Umm...  You know for a chick who's what, over 50?  Meredith's not half bad looking.  I wouldn't think a steady diet of lyrium and venom would be that good for you.  Who knew?

Meredith back in her day though...

Modifié par General User, 16 septembre 2012 - 12:46 .

[Huntress]

joseS95 wrote...

There are just rumors that she will be yor companion... Just rumors

This rumors made by players? if so then is speculaltion type of things..

thinking of it I thought the main character for DA3 was going to be the seeker.. now one of the companion is a seeker.. rofl
I wonder how many SEEKERS will da3 needs in the party??
hey!I got an Idea what about if you have a female seeker as main character cassandra dies, if is male, then another seeker or who ever you like in the party dies! :lol: hmmm sound familiar doens't it?.. but who cares!

[LobselVith8]

General User wrote...

You're actually not that far from getting it, just lose the hyperbole.

You see, while "one person can't force millions of people not to fight for their ideological views,"  The right influential people with the right backing most certainly can convince warring factions to attempt to resolve their differences without ripping each other and probably everyone around them to pieces.  That's what Cassandra's plan seems to be: to put together those right people and give them that right backing before it's too late for everyone.  It's audacious certainly, and probably is something of a long shot too.  But if it can spare Thedas a war as devastating as the Mage-Templar War might be, or even just ameliorate the worst of it, it's a chance worth taking.

Where it is said that Cassandra was seeking out "the right influential people"? She sought Hawke. Perhaps the Seekers who are allied with her also sought out The Warden (based on Leliana's single line about his disappearance), but that's only two popular people. It isn't much of a plan, in my humble opinion.

Depending on the type of import this scenerio takes place in, it's ridiculous to assume either The Warden or the Champion would side with the Chantry and the Seekers if either one of them happens to be pro-mage, i.e. the Mage's Collective and the Magi boon for The Warden, the Mage Underground and wanting to topple templar rule for the Champion.

General User wrote...

It's far more correct to say that the Mage-Templar conflict has been simmering for nearly a thousand years, ie flaring up at times and places and settling down in others.  That's an important distinction because it suggests that reasoned reform may yet be a workable and (as always) preferable solution compared to violent revolution.

I don't share your opinion of the situation. For the most part, we have templars breaking from the Chantry to hunt down the mages, and the Circle mages breaking free from the Chantry to have autonomy. Among these two groups, the templars think they have "divine right" over mages, while mages want to be free from the Chantry and the templars. I don't think a realistic compromise can be reached in such a situation. I certainly wouldn't want to capitulate to the templars, if I was a mage fighting for the autonomy of my people.

General User wrote...

Now this really makes me question whether you understand the viewpoints of any of the moderates, Templars or mages.  As Knight-Captain Cullen might say, the purpose of the Templar Order is not to "dominate" or "subjugate" anyone but rather to protect the public from dangerous magic. 

 
Cullen actually says that templars "have dominion over mages by divine right" in Act III.

As for moderates, I assume you are talking about people like Cassandra and Leliana, who work for Divine Justina V? If there were enough moderates to stop the war, I doubt Cassandra would be chasing after the Champion of Kirkwall.

General User wrote...

And, ironically enough, as the Awakening version of Anders might tell you, most mages are really just asking to be treated as humanely as possible, of which an official sort of "freedom" is only part.  Neither of those is unreasonable and don't necessarily conflict with one another. 

Anders (in Amaranthine) doesn't care about the plight of his people, as he tells Justice (who argues Anders should fight for his people). Wynne, in the City of Amaranthine, argues against mage freedom because she says the Chantry would rather kill all the mages than see them free. The Hero of Ferelden from the Circle of Ferelden can argue that if mages don't fight for their freedom, they will never be free.

General User wrote...

For a start, people who would rather grind ideological axes on each other's faces than actually resolve the issues between them.   Especially when there are wolves at the door.

When that "ideological axe" is their freedom, I can see people finding that to be a cause worth fighting for.

[General User]

LobselVith8 wrote...

 Where it is said that Cassandra was seeking out "the right influential people"? She sought Hawke. Perhaps the Seekers who are allied with her also sought out The Warden (based on Leliana's single line about his disappearance), but that's only two popular people. It isn't much of a plan, in my humble opinion.

Three actually.   Assuming Cassandra and Leliana were acting at the behest or in the interests of the Divine that is.  Furthermore, in Act 3, King Alistair is also expresses himself as a moderate reformer, responsive to both public and mage concerns.  Put those four together, add in some of the more minor characters we've met who express moderate sympathies, and you got quite the group in the works.

Depending on the type of import this scenerio takes place in, it's ridiculous to assume either The Warden or the Champion would side with the Chantry and the Seekers if either one of them happens to be pro-mage, i.e. the Mage's Collective and the Magi boon for The Warden, the Mage Underground and wanting to topple templar rule for the Champion.

It's all but impossible to read intent from game choices.  For example, in Origins, doing quests for the Mage Collective could imply nothing more than that the Warden needed money and they were paying.  Similarly a "pro-mage" Hawke might be inclined to send mages to the Gallows in the interests of maintaining a low profile for mages in general.  And Given that the Divine herself was sympathetic to reforming the Circles, being both "pro-mage" and "pro-Chantry" are far from mutually exclusive.

I don't share your opinion of the situation. For the most part, we have templars breaking from the Chantry to hunt down the mages, and the Circle mages breaking free from the Chantry to have autonomy. Among these two groups, the templars think they have "divine right" over mages, while mages want to be free from the Chantry and the templars. I don't think a realistic compromise can be reached in such a situation. I certainly wouldn't want to capitulate to the templars, if I was a mage fighting for the autonomy of my people.

Neither would I.  But if there was a chance to work out some sort of compromise or settlement with the Chantry and/or the rest of Thedas, that'd be very much worth exploring.  Especially if it meant avoiding a war that, in addition to generally being a destructive waste, my side might very well lose.

Cullen actually says that templars "have dominion over mages by divine right" in Act III. 

When used in that context the word "dominion" means "supreme authority over and/or responsibility for".   "Domination" or "subjugation" or any sort of oppressive context need not be implied.  Besides Cullen was even more right than that, it's all law and tradition, both sacred and secular, that confirms that the Templar Order has dominion over mages.

Wynne, in the City of Amaranthine, argues against mage freedom because she says the Chantry would rather kill all the mages than see them free.

It's been a while since I've seen that scene, but if memory serves Wynne argues against the Circles making a sudden break from the Chantry, not against "mage freedom."

The Hero of Ferelden from the Circle of Ferelden can argue that if mages don't fight for their freedom, they will never be free.

In that case the Hero of Ferelden from the Circle of Ferelden would be wrong.  Hopefully there are still others who may yet prove more open-minded and level-headed.

Anders (in Amaranthine) doesn't care about the plight of his people, as he tells Justice (who argues Anders should fight for his people).

If by "his people" you mean mages, then you're wrong.  Awakening-Anders did care about them.  He also cared deeply about the people of Amaranthine, sticking it out with the Wardens to protect them from the darkspawn.   And he had other things that concerned him too, not least of which were his own pleasure, happiness, and well-being.  Awakening-Anders was what we in the biz like to call a "generally well-rounded person."   He was a good man, it was a real shame what happened to him. 

When that "ideological axe" is their freedom, I can see people finding that to be a cause worth fighting for.

It certainly is.  But when you don't seek out and explore genuine opportunities to resolve the issues at hand without resorting to violence, that's doing it wrong.

[SirGladiator]

Its obviously a given that Cassandra will be playing a role in DA3, its 'speculation' that she will be a companion and an LI, but its incredibly likely as well, and I certainly support it. Its funny, there hasn't actually been a female warrior LI in either game, so if Cassandra is an LI she would be the first. She and Leliana are definitely two sides of the same coin, in that they're both on the side of good and right, not blindly on the side of mages or templars, they just want a fair outcome and peace, just like their boss. That's my way of thinking also.

The Templars will always be needed to put the bad mages down, and as a deterrent to the good mages from taking risks they shouldn't take that could result in them going bad. Mages generally should have more freedom, but the Circle should always be maintained, if for no other reason than to help train young mages, who obviously can't live freely among society, there's no telling what would happen. They need that 24/7 supervision that the Circle provides, and as such there will always be a need for teachers and leaders as well. Once a mage becomes an adult and is determined to have their powers under control, and not a threat in any way, then they should have the same freedom that Wynee has, she clearly has all the freedom as any other citizen, because there's no reason for her not to, everybody knows she's good and trustworthy. So thats the type of solution I'd be looking to craft, a nice middle ground, and I imagine that Cassandra would support something like that as well, as would most folks in both camps, especially if it meant a strong and lasting Peace.

[Merlex]

Renmiri1 wrote...

@General User - Why am I not surprised you like Cassandra for LI ?

 
Make that 2. I hope they put Cassandra and Cullen as LIs. They are both fan favorites. Now while Cullen is not my type, i'm sure it would make some happy. And i wouldn't mine either as companions.

...Cassandra to me is ewwwww!...

BULLSH*T!

[KENNY4753]

I expect Cassandra to bee a companion and probably LI although she did have a thing for Galyan

[Renmiri1]

Merlex wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

@General User - Why am I not surprised you like Cassandra for LI ?

 
Make that 2. I hope they put Cassandra and Cullen as LIs. They are both fan favorites. Now while Cullen is not my type, i'm sure it would make some happy. And i wouldn't mine either as companions.

...Cassandra to me is ewwwww!...

BULLSH*T!

You can have Cassandra if I can have Cullen 

[AlbinaTekla]

Is she not with Leliana? Or is that just fanfiction...?

I'm all for having Cass in DA3 would be cool I liked her scenes in DA2. Interested to see what kind of relationship she'd have with the main character and friends.

[Lazy Jer]

AlbinaTekla wrote...

Is she not with Leliana? Or is that just fanfiction...?

I'm all for having Cass in DA3 would be cool I liked her scenes in DA2. Interested to see what kind of relationship she'd have with the main character and friends.

You say "Is she not with Leliana?" like it would be mutually exclusive to her being an LI in DA3.

[Merlex]

AlbinaTekla wrote...

Is she not with Leliana? Or is that just fanfiction...?

Threesome

[FoxShadowblade]

AlbinaTekla wrote...

Is she not with Leliana? Or is that just fanfiction...?

I'm all for having Cass in DA3 would be cool I liked her scenes in DA2. Interested to see what kind of relationship she'd have with the main character and friends.

From the differences in dialog while playing a male/female Hawke, and the newer animated "movie", Cassandra is implied to be straight. So I doubt she is with Leliana.

As for having her in DA:3, I liked her in 2, and loved the whole movie thing. Cassandra is a passionate woman who has her beliefs and strives for truth, it's admirable and attractive. If she was in 3 and wasn't a LI, I'd be disappointed.

Just as if Leliana was in 3, and I couldn't romance her. Her and the "Good" Female Mage Hawke would be a great couple, I hated the fact she wasn't in 2, but her reveal at the end was fantastic.

[LobselVith8]

General User wrote...

Depending on the type of import this scenerio takes place in, it's ridiculous to assume either The Warden or the Champion would side with the Chantry and the Seekers if either one of them happens to be pro-mage, i.e. the Mage's Collective and the Magi boon for The Warden, the Mage Underground and wanting to topple templar rule for the Champion.

It's all but impossible to read intent from game choices.  For example, in Origins, doing quests for the Mage Collective could imply nothing more than that the Warden needed money and they were paying.  Similarly a "pro-mage" Hawke might be inclined to send mages to the Gallows in the interests of maintaining a low profile for mages in general.  And Given that the Divine herself was sympathetic to reforming the Circles, being both "pro-mage" and "pro-Chantry" are far from mutually exclusive.

The Warden can refuse to turn the Collective over to the templars and help them survive; Hawke can help the mage underground. These choices aren't ambiguous to me. There is also the issue of the Magi boon = mage autonomy from the Chantry and the templars.

[General User]

LobselVith8 wrote...

General User wrote...

Depending on the type of import this scenerio takes place in, it's ridiculous to assume either The Warden or the Champion would side with the Chantry and the Seekers if either one of them happens to be pro-mage, i.e. the Mage's Collective and the Magi boon for The Warden, the Mage Underground and wanting to topple templar rule for the Champion.

It's all but impossible to read intent from game choices.  For example, in Origins, doing quests for the Mage Collective could imply nothing more than that the Warden needed money and they were paying.  Similarly a "pro-mage" Hawke might be inclined to send mages to the Gallows in the interests of maintaining a low profile for mages in general.  And Given that the Divine herself was sympathetic to reforming the Circles, being both "pro-mage" and "pro-Chantry" are far from mutually exclusive.

The Warden can refuse to turn the Collective over to the templars and help them survive; Hawke can help the mage underground. These choices aren't ambiguous to me.

Having some touble with shades of grey, huh?  Let me see if I can help you out.  In a nutshell, the motivations for making any given choices are as different as the people making them. 

For example, let's look at the case of Emile de Launcet, the run-away "bloodmage" from Act 3 of DA2.  A rabidly "pro-mage" Hawke might tell Emile to run away before the Templars get him or he might turn Emile in to hopefully avoid a Templar crackdown on other mages.  Meanwhile a rabidly "anti-mage" Hawke might tell Emile to run away inorder to justify a crackdown of mages in general, or he might turn him in simply because he's a mage and mages belong in the Circle.

It does take a bit of imagination to try and understand why someone with a radically different outlook might end up making the same choices you did, or why someone with pretty much the same outlook might make the opposite choice, but it's worth it. 

There is also the issue of the Magi boon = mage autonomy from the Chantry and the templars.

That was pretty much be the idea.  And King Alistair for his part made a reasonable go at it, but things didn't quite work out the way anyone wanted.  Still, the spirit of reform seems alive and well in Ferelden.  If that state of afairs still leaves the "Hero of Ferelden" in the mood to throw a brick then it's like I said before; hopefully there are people about who are more level-headed and open-minded.

Modifié par General User, 16 septembre 2012 - 11:21 .

[LolaLei]

[LobselVith8]

General User wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Warden can refuse to turn the Collective over to the templars and help them survive; Hawke can help the mage underground. These choices aren't ambiguous to me.

Having some touble with shades of grey, huh?  Let me see if I can help you out.  In a nutshell, the motivations for making any given choices are as different as the people making them.  

For example, let's look at the case of Emile de Launcet, the run-away "bloodmage" from Act 3 of DA2.  A rabidly "pro-mage" Hawke might tell Emile to run away before the Templars get him or he might turn Emile in to hopefully avoid a Templar crackdown on other mages.  Meanwhile a rabidly "anti-mage" Hawke might tell Emile to run away inorder to justify a crackdown of mages in general, or he might turn him in simply because he's a mage and mages belong in the Circle.

It does take a bit of imagination to try and understand why someone with a radically different outlook might end up making the same choices you did, or why someone with pretty much the same outlook might make the opposite choice, but it's worth it.  

It doesn't take much imagination to realize a person might have their Hawke help the mage underground because they think the Chantry and the templars are wrong.

General User wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

There is also the issue of the Magi boon = mage autonomy from the Chantry and the templars.

That was pretty much be the idea.  And King Alistair for his part made a reasonable go at it, but things didn't quite work out the way anyone wanted.  Still, the spirit of reform seems alive and well in Ferelden.  If that state of afairs still leaves the "Hero of Ferelden" in the mood to throw a brick then it's like I said before; hopefully there are people about who are more level-headed and open-minded.

In other words, the Hero of Ferelden can make a clearly pro-mage choice that addresses he thinks mages deserve their independence.

[General User]

LobselVith8 wrote...

General User wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Warden can refuse to turn the Collective over to the templars and help them survive; Hawke can help the mage underground. These choices aren't ambiguous to me.

Having some touble with shades of grey, huh?  Let me see if I can help you out.  In a nutshell, the motivations for making any given choices are as different as the people making them.  

For example, let's look at the case of Emile de Launcet, the run-away "bloodmage" from Act 3 of DA2.  A rabidly "pro-mage" Hawke might tell Emile to run away before the Templars get him or he might turn Emile in to hopefully avoid a Templar crackdown on other mages.  Meanwhile a rabidly "anti-mage" Hawke might tell Emile to run away inorder to justify a crackdown of mages in general, or he might turn him in simply because he's a mage and mages belong in the Circle.

It does take a bit of imagination to try and understand why someone with a radically different outlook might end up making the same choices you did, or why someone with pretty much the same outlook might make the opposite choice, but it's worth it.  

It doesn't take much imagination to realize a person might have their Hawke help the mage underground because they think the Chantry and the templars are wrong.

General User wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

There is also the issue of the Magi boon = mage autonomy from the Chantry and the templars.

That was pretty much be the idea.  And King Alistair for his part made a reasonable go at it, but things didn't quite work out the way anyone wanted.  Still, the spirit of reform seems alive and well in Ferelden.  If that state of afairs still leaves the "Hero of Ferelden" in the mood to throw a brick then it's like I said before; hopefully there are people about who are more level-headed and open-minded.

In other words, the Hero of Ferelden can make a clearly pro-mage choice that addresses he thinks mages deserve their independence.

Sure.  You seem to be largely missing the point.  But sure. 

Maybe this will make more sense to you: In order to make any firm calls about what a person's overall outlook or motivation may be, one must first understand why someone has made the choices that they have.

It's something that very much came into play with Cassandra.  You see, when Cassandra first started interviewing Varric, she believed, based on the few facts that she knew at the time, that Hawke was an anti-Chantry fanatic, but as she learned more and more about what was really happening in Kirkwall, and why Hawke did the things that he did, her perspective on and opinion of the Champion changed rather considerably.

And once again, just to emphasize, there are almost as many reasons to make any choice as there are people that make them. 

Take the "mage-boon" thing.  The Warden might have chosen the mage-boon not beacuse of any sort of zealotry or radicalism, but because they believed that either the Circles, the Templar Order, or both were in need of fairly dramatic reform.  Which by the way, would have made the Warden's opinion similar to the Divine's.