166 réponses à ce sujet

[EricHVela]

Orsino and Meredith are not characters I could support.

However for Cullen (post-Meredith) and like-minded Templars and the Aequitarian Fraternity, I could support them equally.

The remaining Fraternities are either too extreme or promote irresponsibility.

Also, Meredith wasn't the only paranoid Templar out there. Abuses upon the circle was likely rampant if most of them have revolted. Those Templars are also not worth supporting.

Templars that serve the Chantry are not necessarily bad, either. Though, it seems that most extreme Templars wield the Chant as some kind of justification for their unjust actions. The Chant doesn't seem to have a clause stating that Mages are inherently evil. It only seems to suggest that magic users have a greater responsibility. Templars that follow the Chant without exceeding it merely assist mages. Thrask was solidly in favor of that view before his murder by one he would protect. Cullen seemed to be moving towards that particular stance on the Templar's duties despite his harrowing (pun) experience in Ferelden after seeing, first hand, the extremism that he had formerly promoted.

[Dragoonlordz]

I support mages more so than templars. I have been anti-chantry since DAO and that has not changed for DA2 and will not change I am sure for DA3. This does not mean I support mages who butcher and kill people anymore than do for templars. I will however do nothing towards promoting the chantry in any way if I can but it depends on how Bioware write the story or if they let me have such options that are anti-chantry for my character.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:35 .

[GodWood]

Qun > Templars > Mages.

[GodWood]

Double post.

Modifié par GodWood, 14 septembre 2012 - 08:37 .

[Fallstar]

I've never played a character in DA2 who sides with the Templars, so I guess it's the mages for me.

[El Mito]

They both suck.

[Shadow Fox]

Mages even if the Templars have a good point I can't justify slaughtering innocents for the actions of one psychopath.

[Lazy Jer]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Mages even if the Templars have a good point I can't justify slaughtering innocents for the actions of one psychopath.

But enough about Orsino's "Karaoke Night" idea.  J/K.

[Treacherous J Slither]

I side with the mages every time and always will.

[frostajulie]

Mages. I believe Thedas needs a system of checks and balances but the system in place is abusive and corrupt so I choose the side that does not promote a drug addicted armed force to imprison people for the crime of their birth.

[The Six Path of Pain]

If possible I'm looking to screw over both sides in the next Dragon Age,since I can't really stand either side...If not then most likely the Mages since I hate the Chantry and Templars even more.

[Wolfspawn]

The templars, in DA:O, were portrayed as decent folk who were simply trying to protect people for the greater good. Their methods were extreme, but they are simply noble knights who believe the ends justified the means.
In DA2, however, they are basically ****s.
In DA:O, mages were oppressed, and they were mad at the templars for it. In DA2, they were angrier than ever. All it took was a push in the right direction (Anders blowing up the chantry), and rebellion happened.
What Bioware should do is make it not so much of a black and white decision. Make it like the American Civil War, which was extremely gray.
Anyway, I picked mages in DA:O. Mainly because my Warden was a Magi. And because it would be heartless to let all the mages die in the Circle in Ferelden. Anyway, my Hawke mainly thought the conflict was stupid, so he mostly remained neutral. When he had to make a choice, though, he chose mages. I would've probably done the same thing in real life, as well.

[Wolfspawn]

By the way, the word that was censored was N a z i.

[Lazy Jer]

bob_20000 wrote...

By the way, the word that was censored was N a z i.

That happens.  Using the Other N-Word tends to ****** people right the heck o f f.

In re, your original post I'm going to hazard a guess that Bethany had alot to do with your initial choice.  I say that because it's the main reason I sided with the mages at first as well.  Politics is politics but Bethy is family.

[Wolfspawn]

Actually, Bethany died in my playthrough (I was a mage.)

[Sable Rhapsody]

As a player, neither at this point. I feel bad for the poor normal people caught in between as the mages and templars tear the world apart and try to kill each other. But both of my PCs have been mages, and both sided with the mages in DA:O and DA2.

[DPSSOC]

Templars. Any new established system is going to be just as corrupt and abusive as the current one so it's ultimately a matter of who you want on top. As bad as the drug-addicted zealots are I'm safe in knowing they won't murder people to perform parlour tricks or heat a cup of tea.

[Xilizhra]

DPSSOC wrote...

Templars. Any new established system is going to be just as corrupt and abusive as the current one so it's ultimately a matter of who you want on top. As bad as the drug-addicted zealots are I'm safe in knowing they won't murder people to perform parlour tricks or heat a cup of tea.

When they start rounding up everyone who has mage blood, including all elves, and then eventually just killing them outright along with killing all mages, perhaps you'll feel silly.

Anyway, unlike some others, I believe that things can, in fact, change if allowed to do so. As we've actually seen happen IRL. And I'm with the mages all the way.

[Nomadiac]

I always support mages at the end of DA2, because the alternative is to go along with a psycho's genocidal massacre. It's not even about whether mages should be free from the Chantry, or how you feel about Templars - I mean, Meredith used Anders' actions as her excuse to invoke the Right of Annulment, and he wasn't even a Circle Mage.

There are certain choices that I always do the same in any play through of an RPG, no matter which character, and this is one of them - if my character wants to join in this massacre, then I'm not playing him/her, because I don't play characters I don't have at least some respect for.

With regards to the whole matter, I still support mages, though not complete freedom - mages need to be trained. I reckon keeping the Circle, but governed by mages and without the Rite of Tranquility, is the way to go. Mages could be free to live normal lives once they pass their Harrowing (but accompanied by the First Enchanter/senior mage inside the Fade), and mages still in training would be free to have visits from family, letters, and visit every few months. I'm still split on whether it should be compulsory to go (ie. enforceable by the Circle).

The danger isn't untrained mages being tricked or forced into possession by a demon - it's psychos like Tarohne, Decimus, Grace et al. who actually think using blood magic and dealing with spirits/demons is a good idea.

[DPSSOC]

Xilizhra wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Templars. Any new established system is going to be just as corrupt and abusive as the current one so it's ultimately a matter of who you want on top. As bad as the drug-addicted zealots are I'm safe in knowing they won't murder people to perform parlour tricks or heat a cup of tea.

When they start rounding up everyone who has mage blood, including all elves, and then eventually just killing them outright along with killing all mages, perhaps you'll feel silly.

Not really no.  My point was that the Templars, at their worst, will never be as bad as the mages at their worst, they can't.  Also the Templars, at their worst, will restrict their abuses to mages and possibly mage families.  The mages, at their worst, will inflict their abuses on everybody.

Xilizhra wrote...
Anyway, unlike some others, I believe that things can, in fact, change if allowed to do so. As we've actually seen happen IRL. And I'm with the mages all the way.

Change isn't always positive.  I believe that the next system put in place will be just as oppressive and abusive because, as of yet, neither side has any reason to do any differently.  Rarely, in fact nearly never, is positive (highly subjective but still) change instituted just because it's positive change.

What reason do the mages have to not give back exactly what they got?  As of yet none.  What reason do the Templars have to ease up in their treatment?  Same answer.

[Spicen]

Mages.

[Uccio]

Mages.

[LobselVith8]

DPSSOC wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

When they start rounding up everyone who has mage blood, including all elves, and then eventually just killing them outright along with killing all mages, perhaps you'll feel silly.

Not really no.  My point was that the Templars, at their worst, will never be as bad as the mages at their worst, they can't.  Also the Templars, at their worst, will restrict their abuses to mages and possibly mage families.  The mages, at their worst, will inflict their abuses on everybody.

Meredith didn't restrict herself to mages when she became dictator over the entire city, and I can only imagine what her death squad did. Also, her templars tortured a child who wasn't related to a mage to get information on Feynriel.

[DPSSOC]

LobselVith8 wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

When they start rounding up everyone who has mage blood, including all elves, and then eventually just killing them outright along with killing all mages, perhaps you'll feel silly.

Not really no.  My point was that the Templars, at their worst, will never be as bad as the mages at their worst, they can't.  Also the Templars, at their worst, will restrict their abuses to mages and possibly mage families.  The mages, at their worst, will inflict their abuses on everybody.

Meredith didn't restrict herself to mages when she became dictator over the entire city, and I can only imagine what her death squad did. Also, her templars tortured a child who wasn't related to a mage to get information on Feynriel.

Meredith wasn't brutalizing anyone who wasn't a mage or harbouring one.  She grossly overstepped her bounds but I didn't get the impression that anything changed in the day to day life of your average Kirkwaller.  The shops were still running and as long as you weren't a mage or related to and harbouring one it was business as usual.  Again my impressions I don't really hear all the little side talk among the NPCs (unless something catches my attention it's just white noise) so I may have missed something.

Can't say I know what you're talking about with Feynriel.  When does this happen?

[LobselVith8]

DPSSOC wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Meredith didn't restrict herself to mages when she became dictator over the entire city, and I can only imagine what her death squad did. Also, her templars tortured a child who wasn't related to a mage to get information on Feynriel.

Meredith wasn't brutalizing anyone who wasn't a mage or harbouring one.  She grossly overstepped her bounds but I didn't get the impression that anything changed in the day to day life of your average Kirkwaller.  The shops were still running and as long as you weren't a mage or related to and harbouring one it was business as usual.  Again my impressions I don't really hear all the little side talk among the NPCs (unless something catches my attention it's just white noise) so I may have missed something.

Can't say I know what you're talking about with Feynriel.  When does this happen?

Act II, Dalish camp, prior to "Night Terrors," if Feynriel went to the Dalish.