615 réponses à ce sujet

[Hazegurl]

Youth4Ever wrote...

I know. At that point you blood magic has corroupted the Circle and the situation tense from all the quests you've done. And what are you going to do? Put the RoA on hold while you kill the public first? Put them down and then call the RoA on the Circle? What is the point in that?

Right, "let's kill the citizens of Kirkwall and die saving corrupt mages" totally the smart move to make. I hate Anders and I did not agree with the RoA but at least you root out the corrupt mages within the circle due to those actions. I feel for the innocent ones caught up in their mess which is why I spare the ones who come to Hawke for aid. I know some posters have dismissed the number of mages saved siding with Meredith but it's better than zero, which is what happens when you side with the mages.

Orsino just did some dumb things in my book.

Oh yeah, the man was an idiot. But it doesn't surprise me, he does think that killing his own in a blood magic ritual to turn into a monster was a bright idea.

Yeah On The Loose had one fake blood mage and he turns himself in if you prompt him to do so. I do because he doesn't have a clue about how to make it outside the Circle. Meredith takes him back with Hawke's assurance he's not a legit blood mage. I choose the aggressive response that went like, "This fool was out here claiming to be a blood mage so he could girls! What an idiot." And the smile on her face was hilarious. I think she even chuckled before saying they would take him back without any issues or punishments.

I turned him in on my first playthrough..after letting him get some. But let him go in my others because i figured his parents should deal with him as well as a little metagaming.

Yep. There wasn't a blood mage in Kirkwall that wasn't trying to get power, rebel, indulge in a killing spree, control, etc. There wasn't a Malcolm Hawke among them.

Right, that's the problem with blood magic. Most of its users are freaking crazy, and people wonder why no one can see the good in it. There just aren't many Malcolms in the world, period.

[Lavaeolus]

I know some posters have dismissed the number of mages saved siding with Meredith but it's better than zero, which is what happens when you side with the mages.

If you side with the mages, they don't all die -- "many of them" live, according to Varric (epilogue).

I think that you got the impression they all died anyway is a problem with the game itself, though; it doesn't really show you this. You don't see any other mages aside from Orisino and his corpses, so you have no idea you just saved a bunch of these people.

Modifié par Mr Maniac, 01 mai 2013 - 04:51 .

[pdusen]

I've read enough of this thread to know that what I'm about to say will probably fall on deaf ears... but I'm doing it anyway.

The basic truth presented to us is that Meredith ordered the RoA because Anders blew up the chantry, killing the Grand Cleric. Anders is not a member of Kirkwall's Circle of Magi. So, in summary, as a result of a horrible crime committed by a single individual, Meredith orders the genocide of a completely unrelated group of people. Meredith is commiting an even more horrible crime and cannot be supported.

Genocide is always wrong. The consequences of opposing it are irrelevant. The possibility for collateral damage from opposing it is irrelevant. The math you use to determine the expected losses, accurate or not, is irrelevant. Whatever else the mages may have been up to is irrelevant. Evil things are evil and must not be allowed to occur.

That is why I opposed Meredith; to do what I could to prevent a horrible crime from occuring. Mages survived due to my intervention, so I succeeded. In an ideal outcome, I could have disarmed Meredith and put her on public trial for crimes against humanity, to set an example for others, but she didn't leave me any option to do that, so her death is an acceptable outcome.

Genocide is one of the worst crimes a person can commit and is not justifiable. It can never be supported. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is of questionable morality.

Modifié par pdusen, 01 mai 2013 - 05:51 .

[MisterJB]

I, of course, disagree, pdusen.
Sometimes, evil can be used for good.To kill is evil, but to kill in self defense is good.
Logically, the mages were the ones causing all of the damage to the city and its people during the Last Straw, therefore, I believe killing the mages will save more lives than those that are lost. Therefore, it's good.

On the other hand, I believe that risking the entirety of Kirkwall's population, innocent people, due to morality is more immoral, in fact, than protecting them.

But thank you for your contribution. And that is not sarcasm.

Modifié par MisterJB, 01 mai 2013 - 06:08 .

[pdusen]

MisterJB wrote...
Sometimes, evil can be used for good.

It cannot. Evil is evil. Evil used for good is still evil.

To kill is evil, but to kill in self defense is good.

Almost correct. Killing is evil in all but a select few specific circumstances. These vary by a person's beliefs, but I would say that most people can agree that killing anyone who is not beyond rehabilitiation is evil. If someone is trying to kill you and can't be reasoned with, that would put them beyond rehabilitiation.

Logically, the mages were the ones causing all of the damage to the city and its people during the Last Straw, therefore, I believe killing the mages will save more lives than those that are lost. Therefore, it's good.

The mages are defending themselves from genocide. The Templars are committing genocide. Preventing genocide is good; supporting genocide is evil. The number of lives lost as a result of the conflict is immaterial.

On the other hand, I believe that risking the entirety of Kirkwall's population, innocent people, due to morality is more immoral, in fact, than protecting them.

Their lives are at risk because the Templars are committing genocide, an evil act, and indirectly putting their lives at risk. The moral (read: not evil) thing to do is oppose the genocide. The number of people that die as a result of the evil actions of the templars is immaterial.

Modifié par pdusen, 01 mai 2013 - 06:24 .

[lil yonce]

pdusen wrote...

I've read enough of this thread to know that what I'm about to say will probably fall on deaf ears... but I'm doing it anyway.

The basic truth presented to us is that Meredith ordered the RoA because Anders blew up the chantry, killing the Grand Cleric.

Then why did she call the RoA long before The Last Straw?

[pdusen]

Youth4Ever wrote...
Then why did she call the RoA long before The Last Straw?

She didn't; she requests that the Divine in Val Royeaux do so (probably hoping that it would gain legitimacy if done this way), but does not do it personally until Anders blows up the chantry. 

Citation:
http://dragonage.wik...redith_Stannard
http://dragonage.wik.../The_Last_Straw

Modifié par pdusen, 01 mai 2013 - 07:09 .

[lil yonce]

Call as in request it, I mean. She could not execute it when she wanted because Elthina would not grant her the Right but that does not mean she did not call for it. That she did not feel it necessary well before The Last Straw. That her reasoning has changed. She writes to Val Royeaux to go over Elthina's head and receive the approval needed to carry it out. But after Elthin's death she has all the authority she needs and does not need an offical response.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 01 mai 2013 - 07:15 .

[MisterJB]

pdusen wrote...
It cannot. Evil is evil. Evil used for good is still evil.

And the good created from using evil is still good.

Their lives are at risk because the Templars are committing genocide, an evil act, and indirectly putting their lives at risk. The moral (read: not evil) thing to do is oppose the genocide. The number of people that die as a result of the evil actions of the templars is immaterial.

It is anything but immateral. You are speaking of people's lives who are innocent and who have worth, even if they don't possess demigod powers like the mages.
Were I given the option to prevent the conflict in the first place, I would take it. But I am not. I can only pick a side and, in this situation, I'm going with the side that is not lauching fireballs and summoning demons.
Where is the morality is sacrificing ten innocents so one might live?

[pdusen]

Where is the morality is sacrificing ten innocents so one might live?

I didn't sacrifice any life. I opposed an evil act of genocide being committed by an implacable aggressor in the Templars. If any lives are lost at all, it is a direct result of their actions and they must be held accountable.

Modifié par pdusen, 01 mai 2013 - 07:35 .

[MisterJB]

No, it's a direct result of the mages snuffing these lives out. Mages that you can kill, thus saving the city.
Opposing the templars only extends the duration of the battle, costing the lives of more Kirkwallers.

[Lazy Jer]

pdusen wrote...

I've read enough of this thread to know that what I'm about to say will probably fall on deaf ears... but I'm doing it anyway.

The basic truth presented to us is that Meredith ordered the RoA because Anders blew up the chantry, killing the Grand Cleric. Anders is not a member of Kirkwall's Circle of Magi. So, in summary, as a result of a horrible crime committed by a single individual, Meredith orders the genocide of a completely unrelated group of people. Meredith is commiting an even more horrible crime and cannot be supported.

Genocide is always wrong. The consequences of opposing it are irrelevant. The possibility for collateral damage from opposing it is irrelevant. The math you use to determine the expected losses, accurate or not, is irrelevant. Whatever else the mages may have been up to is irrelevant. Evil things are evil and must not be allowed to occur.

That is why I opposed Meredith; to do what I could to prevent a horrible crime from occuring. Mages survived due to my intervention, so I succeeded. In an ideal outcome, I could have disarmed Meredith and put her on public trial for crimes against humanity, to set an example for others, but she didn't leave me any option to do that, so her death is an acceptable outcome.

Genocide is one of the worst crimes a person can commit and is not justifiable. It can never be supported. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is of questionable morality.

Heh...it'll only fall on deaf ears to the people who disagree with you and/or the people who can't find your post when it gets buried in the walls of text on this thread.

[pdusen]

MisterJB wrote...

No, it's a direct result of the mages snuffing these lives out. Mages that you can kill, thus saving the city.
Opposing the templars only extends the duration of the battle, costing the lives of more Kirkwallers.

If any Kirkwallers die (a possibility, but not a certainty, because nobody is targetting the Kirkwallers), it is because the Templars manufactured a situation in which the Mages must resort to violent measures to avoid certain execution.

If Mages were taking Kirkwallers hostage and killing them any time that Templars attacked, you might have a point. If Mages decided to kill every Kirkwaller they see for funsies, you might have a point. But they weren't, so you don't.

Again. Genocide evil. Self-defense good.

Modifié par pdusen, 01 mai 2013 - 08:24 .

[DKJaigen]

MisterJB wrote...

pdusen wrote...
It cannot. Evil is evil. Evil used for good is still evil.

And the good created from using evil is still good.

Their lives are at risk because the Templars are committing genocide, an evil act, and indirectly putting their lives at risk. The moral (read: not evil) thing to do is oppose the genocide. The number of people that die as a result of the evil actions of the templars is immaterial.

It is anything but immateral. You are speaking of people's lives who are innocent and who have worth, even if they don't possess demigod powers like the mages.
Were I given the option to prevent the conflict in the first place, I would take it. But I am not. I can only pick a side and, in this situation, I'm going with the side that is not lauching fireballs and summoning demons.
Where is the morality is sacrificing ten innocents so one might live?

I do not agree. You base your entire decision upon theories that have not a single basis. Furthermore you gave into the mob and you never give into the mob as it becomes horrible uncaring monster if you allow it.

[MisterJB]

pdusen wrote...
If any Kirkwallers die (a possibility, but not a certainty, because nobody is targetting the Kirkwallers), it is because the Templars manufactured a situation in which the Mages must resort to violent measures to avoid certain execution.

If Mages were taking Kirkwallers hostage and killing them any time that Templars attacked, you might have a point. If Mages decided to kill every Kirkwaller they see for funsies, you might have a point. But they weren't, so you don't.

Again. Genocide evil. Self-defense good.

With unchecked spells, demons and Abominations all around the city which is already burning, it is a certainty Kirkwallers will die. You can, in fact, already see corpses under debris.
And to these kirkwallers and their families, it matters little why this fight it's happening. Genocide or self defense, all they will care about it's the fact this fight it's killing them and their families.
It is thus irrelevant who is in the right between mages and templars. All that is relevant is how to same more lives which is accomplished by siding with the templars given the fact they are more numerous and it's the mages who are causing all of the damage.

Modifié par MisterJB, 01 mai 2013 - 08:49 .

[pdusen]

MisterJB wrote...

And to these kirkwallers and their families, it matters little why this fight it's happening. Genocide or self defense, all they will care about it's the fact this fight it's killing them and their families.
It is thus irrelevant who is in the right between mages and templars. All that is relevant is how to same more lives which is accomplished by siding with the templars given the fact they are more numerous and it's the mages who are causing all of the damage.

Incorrect. Those affected directly by a tragedy will rarely be objective and therefore cannot be relied upon for moral judgement. Right is right and wrong is wrong, always. Who specifically does or does not die is immaterial.

Modifié par pdusen, 01 mai 2013 - 09:02 .

[MisterJB]

It's not a matter of moral judgement. It's a matter of people dying which is far more material than moralities which are, have always been and will always be 100% subjective.
I find it wrong to protect the mages at the expense of the city. You prefer to stand for what you perceive to be moral regardless of who gets hurt.

[pdusen]

MisterJB wrote...

It's not a matter of moral judgement. It's a matter of people dying which is far more material than moralities which are, have always been and will always be 100% subjective.
I find it wrong to protect the mages at the expense of the city. You prefer to stand for what you perceive to be moral regardless of who gets hurt.

People, mages or not, are dying because templars are committing genocide. There is a clear cause and effect here. There is nothing subjective about it. By supporting the templars, you are supporting genocide, and therefore supporting people dying.

[BlueMagitek]

pdusen wrote...

I've read enough of this thread to know that what I'm about to say will probably fall on deaf ears... but I'm doing it anyway.

...

Sadly, both leaders go off in an attempt of genocide.

Flesh golems op.

[MisterJB]

The reasons are irrelevant. It's happening and the only thing that matters is ending it as quickly and painlessly as possible.
The mages are fewer in number than the templars and they are the ones causing the entirety of collateral damage. Therefore, eliminating them makes the battle shorter and reduces the size of the collateral damage thus saving the life of kirkwallers.
I would have prefered Meredith not call for the Right at all but that's not an option Hawke is given.

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

The reasons are irrelevant. It's happening and the only thing that matters is ending it as quickly and painlessly as possible.
The mages are fewer in number than the templars and they are the ones causing the entirety of collateral damage. Therefore, eliminating them makes the battle shorter and reduces the size of the collateral damage thus saving the life of kirkwallers.
I would have prefered Meredith not call for the Right at all but that's not an option Hawke is given.

Assuming I understand you correctly, I can see what you're saying from a purely mathematical perspective.  Siding with the Templars to carry out the Right of Annulment is the option with the fewest deaths.

I might agree if it were simply a question of picking which side to eliminate since whichever one you pick, some lives are going to be lost regardless.

But I disagree that the total number of lives saved versus those lost should be the rule that carries the day.  The mages are innocent of Anders' crime, and it is THAT crime, specifically, which has led Meredith to carry out Annulment.  There may or may not be blood mages among them; the fact remains, that's NOT why they are being killed.  Meredith is clear on this point:  her stated reason for carrying out the Annulment is because the people of Kirkwall will demand blood.  She may have wanted to do it for some time, and she may have wanted to do it because she suspects blood mages and considers the Circle irredeemable.  But her own stated reason is that she has to do it because the people of Kirkwall will require it.  She's not interested in investigating to find out whether any of the mages actually were in league with Anders, she just wants to execute them, period. 

That is why I, at least, say she is wrong and that the appropriate action is to stand against her Annulment.  The mages are not running amok in the city just because they want to slaughter innocent people:  they have been pushed into defending themselves from execution.  I'm aware that sending fireballs into the city is likely to cause injury or death to people not targeted by the mages.  This doesn't change the fact, however, that the reason the mages are doing it isn't to cause wanton death and destruction, but because they've been forced into a kill-or-be-killed situation.  If people die, it is not the fault of the mages, but the Templars, because they are the ones who put the mages in that position. 

Add to all this, when you speak of the people of Kirkwall, that includes the mages, too.  They are Kirkwallians just as everyone else.  And it is the templars' duty to protect mages from just the sort of mob threat do which Meredith alluded: it certainly isn't okay to slaughter the mages because you claim/suspect the people will demand it of you.  It's an excuse that rings hollow regardless because Meredith is and has been the power in Kirkwall for years, and has shown no interest in abiding by the will of the people.  It's not legally her place to do so, as she IS forbidden by Chantry law from having civil authority, but she has it, officially or not, legally or not, and she certainly has the manpower to put down any mob that might form.

[Hazegurl]

Mr Maniac wrote...

I know some posters have dismissed the number of mages saved siding with Meredith but it's better than zero, which is what happens when you side with the mages.

If you side with the mages, they don't all die -- "many of them" live, according to Varric (epilogue).

I think that you got the impression they all died anyway is a problem with the game itself, though; it doesn't really show you this. You don't see any other mages aside from Orisino and his corpses, so you have no idea you just saved a bunch of these people.

ah, that could be it. As a matter of fact I have several issues with the game when you side with mages. Like having to fight mages AND Templars on the streets. I felt like I was just wasting my time trying to help these people and now I've made an enemy out of the Templars whom I have to fight on top of these crazy mages. The devs should have made two completely different fights for the choices made and also add a third option to not pick either side, if they wanted players to fight both sides. 

[Hazegurl]

pdusen wrote...

I've read enough of this thread to know that what I'm about to say will probably fall on deaf ears... but I'm doing it anyway.

The basic truth presented to us is that Meredith ordered the RoA because Anders blew up the chantry, killing the Grand Cleric. Anders is not a member of Kirkwall's Circle of Magi. So, in summary, as a result of a horrible crime committed by a single individual, Meredith orders the genocide of a completely unrelated group of people. Meredith is commiting an even more horrible crime and cannot be supported.

Genocide is always wrong. The consequences of opposing it are irrelevant. The possibility for collateral damage from opposing it is irrelevant. The math you use to determine the expected losses, accurate or not, is irrelevant. Whatever else the mages may have been up to is irrelevant. Evil things are evil and must not be allowed to occur.

That is why I opposed Meredith; to do what I could to prevent a horrible crime from occuring. Mages survived due to my intervention, so I succeeded. In an ideal outcome, I could have disarmed Meredith and put her on public trial for crimes against humanity, to set an example for others, but she didn't leave me any option to do that, so her death is an acceptable outcome.

Genocide is one of the worst crimes a person can commit and is not justifiable. It can never be supported. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is of questionable morality.

I may not agree with the RoA but I can see the problems that led up to it long before Anders took a bomb to the chantry. Kirkwall was just simply infested with blood mages and quite a few had contact with circle members(Grace and Co.). Even Anders, an abomination, claims there is a mage underground with sewer connections leading to the circle. If I were Meredith I would wonder how corrupt the circle is long before Anders did anything, especially since too many soft hearted Templars weren't doing their jobs and getting themselves killed by mages as a result.

Would I call for an RoA? No. I would probably want to make sure by conducting a thorough search of the circle though. Something that she was actually doing that Orsino tried to prevent.

So now Anders blows up the chantry. The grand Cleric slain by a mage just like all the others who have trusted the mages.

It's 100% his crime but no one can blow up a chantry alone...technically he had help...Hawke the sucker. But in Meredith's mind it could be anyone. So no I don't blame her, especially since an Exalted March was planned on Kirkwall before this occured. If I were Meredith, I would call the RoA for the sole reason of preventing a possible March on Kirkwall. Is this evil (according to you)? Perhaps. But I'll save an entire city as a result. 

Oh and I love how you question people's morals in RL based off a choice in the video game. I guess David Gaider is the evilest sob on the planet for writing this.

[Lavaeolus]

As a matter of fact I have several issues with the game when you side with mages.

I agree. From a purely non-ethical view, I think the templar ending is much better. The mage ending ends up just being the templars side, with all the templar-specific stuff removed. All the actual mage-saving, which the ending is really about, is off-screen.

But does that make it the better ending ethically? No. Not to say that mages are the ethical side, either. There's a lot to weigh up here, and Hawke probably doesn't know that war is going to erupt Thedas-wide either way anyway.

The devs should have made two completely different fights for the choices made and also add a third option to not pick either side, if they wanted players to fight both sides.

I think the developers might have been going for a "you can't just take a third option" angle. No compromise seems to be a big "bit" of the game. (Cheers, Anders! )

How well that's executed, however, is another issue altogether.

Oh and I love how you question people's morals in RL based off a
choice in the video game. I guess David Gaider is the evilest sob on the
planet for writing this.

Of course! Just look at that crafty beard of his.

Modifié par Mr Maniac, 02 mai 2013 - 12:04 .

[DKJaigen]

MisterJB wrote...

The reasons are irrelevant. It's happening and the only thing that matters is ending it as quickly and painlessly as possible.
The mages are fewer in number than the templars and they are the ones causing the entirety of collateral damage. Therefore, eliminating them makes the battle shorter and reduces the size of the collateral damage thus saving the life of kirkwallers.
I would have prefered Meredith not call for the Right at all but that's not an option Hawke is given.

thats like saying that people should support germany in ww2 because aiding them to win the war quickly will kill less people. You dont seem to understand that you are supporting a corrupt organisation that shows it has no respect for human live what so ever. When hawke dissapears kirkwal will be drowned in blood as the noble/templar conflict is still not resolved. In short your being short sighted. Helping the templars may or may note reduce cassualties the future of kirkwall is grim indeed wih you choice.