599 réponses à ce sujet

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Qistina genuinely scares me.






Oh and no guns in Thedas.

[Cainhurst Crow]

You do realize the earliest guns really, really sucked right? Due to how much more expensive they were to produce than a bow, and how much they tended to be inaccurate, because the concept of a bored barrel wasn't thought up until the late 1700's, hundreds of years after firearms were being used.

They were good to up to about I'd say 20 to 30 feet, than they became pretty much up useless unless you got lucky. And their primary role on the battlefield was to combat armored enemies, not actually infintrymen or anyone at a distance like how we would think of firearms today. They had a similar use to pikemen, and that was about their extent until they advanced in tech enough to make their firearms on par with archers in terms of loading speed.

[Trolldrool]

Medieval cannons/early rifles blew up. A lot. The development of medieval firearms in europe was one of trial and error. When they worked, things were good. When they didn't, the enemy would laugh at your charred remains. And even when they worked, they took a really long time to reload, which would be a serious disadvantage against Blights.

Magic isn't a profession that is easily abandoned and forgotten just because you suddenly got something more efficient to kill people with. You're either born with the ability, or you're not. And dozens, if not hundreds are born with it every few years. And some years later, they start igniting the hair on the children who bully them, reintroducing the entire village where they live to the fear of mages.

[Realmzmaster]

Filament wrote...

I think the revolutionary aspect of guns before they became superior in every respect was the fact that your common infantry grunts with little skill who may have previously just charged into battle and died unproductively can now actually do some damage before charging into the battle and dying unproductively.

You could also ask why people should be carrying around wooden bows or tin can "easy bake oven" metal armors against mages who can shoot fire and lightning from their hands. I say enchantment.

True , but it is far easier for the archer to dispose of a flaming bow and quiver than a gunman to dispose of his gun before it explodes or the gunpowder he/she has to carry. The use of metal armor has both good and bad features. The armor can help one to survive the concussive effects of the fireball. The metal armor can also be made fire resistant. 
It is counter productive to make gunpowder fire resistant.

If guns and gunpowder are to be used then they should have the same disadvantages and advantages of early period firearms. The gun should have the potential to backfire or exploded on the gunman injuring him/her.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 10 mai 2013 - 08:41 .

[n7stormrunner]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Qistina genuinely scares me.
.

really I just find qistina amusing then again I have doubts about my own sanity, oh and nice name

[Cainhurst Crow]

Additional thought: I am not saying that there should never be guns introduced into dragon age, things tend to happen with arms races and what not.

But what I am saying is that gunpowder won't really solve any of the problems anymore than current weaponry will, or have that much of a drastic effect when it comes to fighting wars or helping end inequality.

[Zelto]

As a interesting note about guns vs bows, Lord Wellington apparently asked for a corps of longbowmen because they fired faster than rifflemen or mustiteers and without the medivel armour would have been just as effective in combat during the Napolionic wars.

Given that this was a long way into gun combat 1800s, (after the American Revolutionary War for a guid) why would a civilization with powerful mages capable of wide area devestation ever develope guns. Technology developes to fill needs not the otherway around generally, and I really can't see the need. Mages generally don't wear armour so a bow is a better weapon, and if your fighting another nation then you can use your own mages.

[BlueMagitek]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

You do realize the earliest guns really, really sucked right? Due to how much more expensive they were to produce than a bow, and how much they tended to be inaccurate, because the concept of a bored barrel wasn't thought up until the late 1700's, hundreds of years after firearms were being used.

I believe grapeshot was developed around, what, the 1500s?  That would be extremely effective against the amassed Darkspawn hordes.

And the Qunari, if I recall correctly, do have cannons. :happy:

[Swagger7]

Joy Divison wrote...


@Swagger7 - even if what you have there is true (which I'm dubious, just about *every* comparision between bows and firearms I've seen has quality bows with a greater lethality than guns until the 1700s.  I'm no physicist so I can't exactly run a test in my basement), the far superior rate of fire of the longbowman will make him a deadlier battlefield combatant.

Most of those comparisons (at least that I've found) are based on dubious sources like the national traditions of England, where they glorify the longbow (despite replacing it with guns as quickly as everyone else), and not on any kind of test data.  My little study is based on actual performance figures of replica equipment, such as it is and what there is of it. 

Rate of fire is useless when your shots don't penetrate an enemy's armor.  By the time of the matchlock musket armor manufacturing had progressed to the point that most of the men in an army had at least a cuirass and helmet.  Armies in this period were smaller and more professional than previous centuries.  Also, the problem with a bow's high rate of fire is that arrows are fairly bulky, and have to be carried in such a way that their flights aren't damaged.  This limits the number of arrows an archer can carry, which in turn limits his rate of fire.  (unless he really wants to empty his quiver in a few minutes and stand there helpless)

The matchlock gun so thoroughly replaced bows and crossbows on the battlefield that I find it hard to believe it wasn't generally superior.  If bows or crossbows held some redeeming quality you'd think they would have been retained in sizable numbers for a long period.  Our forebears were just as smart as we are today.  If something worked they used it.  If it didn't, then it was discarded and replaced by something which did work.

Heck, even the Japanese (who were famed for their archery) rapidly adopted the matchlock musket in huge numbers.  The Portugese gave the Japanese matchlock technology in 1543, right in the middle of the Warring States Period.  Within ten years they had manufactured 300,000 of them.  (books.google.com/books)  Even samurai widely adopted the gun for use in battle, setting aside their bows.  Even the warlord Takeda Shingen said ""Hereafter, guns will be the most important arms.  Therefore decrease the number of spears and have your most capable men carry guns."" in 1567.   (books.google.com/books  page17)  From that point through the end of the Warring States Period guns were a main feature of every major battle.

[Uccio]

Anyone interested in guns in DA serie can go play one of the millions of FPS games out there. Thank you.

[Zelto]

Swagger7 wrote...

Most of those comparisons (at least that I've found) are based on dubious sources like the national traditions of England, where they glorify the longbow (despite replacing it with guns as quickly as everyone else), and not on any kind of test data.  My little study is based on actual performance figures of replica equipment, such as it is and what there is of it. 

Rate of fire is useless when your shots don't penetrate an enemy's armor.  By the time of the matchlock musket armor manufacturing had progressed to the point that most of the men in an army had at least a cuirass and helmet.  Armies in this period were smaller and more professional than previous centuries.  Also, the problem with a bow's high rate of fire is that arrows are fairly bulky, and have to be carried in such a way that their flights aren't damaged.  This limits the number of arrows an archer can carry, which in turn limits his rate of fire.  (unless he really wants to empty his quiver in a few minutes and stand there helpless)

The matchlock gun so thoroughly replaced bows and crossbows on the battlefield that I find it hard to believe it wasn't generally superior.  If bows or crossbows held some redeeming quality you'd think they would have been retained in sizable numbers for a long period.  Our forebears were just as smart as we are today.  If something worked they used it.  If it didn't, then it was discarded and replaced by something which did work.

Heck, even the Japanese (who were famed for their archery) rapidly adopted the matchlock musket in huge numbers.  The Portugese gave the Japanese matchlock technology in 1543, right in the middle of the Warring States Period.  Within ten years they had manufactured 300,000 of them.  (books.google.com/books)  Even samurai widely adopted the gun for use in battle, setting aside their bows.  Even the warlord Takeda Shingen said ""Hereafter, guns will be the most important arms.  Therefore decrease the number of spears and have your most capable men carry guns."" in 1567.   (books.google.com/books  page17)  From that point through the end of the Warring States Period guns were a main feature of every major battle.

The main reason was that longbowmen trained from their teens untill adulthood with the bow to be profficient. To shoot a gun took a few weeks practice to be usefull. Therefore you could either train your entire nation with the bow, reducing farming and other proffesions, on the off chance a war would occur or have your army trained rappidly with guns when needed. A skilled archer could probably fire a bow faster than a WW2 bolt action rifle albeit for a short period of time before they became exausted.

Your argument also relies on the use of high quality steel armour by the majority of the enemy army. Darkspawn wear poor quality stolen armour, therefore arrows will be more effective due to rate of fire.

Anyway DA isn't about real life. Otherwise rogues would be useless using daggers that would never hurt a plate or mail wearing knight. Guns don't add anything to game play, they would just replace archers, add complications as said fireballs would explode the gunpowder, and move the game from the medivel feel it has to a more modern feeling.

[Kais Endac]

 Guns in Dragon Age would solve very little.
1) Mages will always be discriminated against in the DA universe there is no great equalizer for them, they are capable of great destruction and can be susceptible to possession. They will always be seen as different and the major powers actively try to suppress or control them, The Chantry has the Circle of Magi while the Qunari collar and control their Mages and kill any who lose their Arvaarad. All gunpowder will do is make mages easier to kill in groups. The only group of Free mages reside in the Tevinter Imperium and they are not exactly ideal role models.

2) Darkspawn will remain a problem until the last Archdemon and Broodmother are killed, they breed in enormous numbers and usually use sheer numbers to overwhelm their enemies. They die like any other creature though so as long as they don't get their hands on large amounts of guns and somehow learn to replicate, it it would make dealing with them easier. The only problem would be dealing with Ogres who are known to be resilient and can sometimes regenerate. 
"Unless it is ensured that they have received a major wound to the head or the heart, it is possible that they are lying dormant and will regenerate to full health within a matter of minutes" [Codex Entry Ogre]

Archdemon's are also a problem given that they must be slain by a grey warden in close combat or they simply possess another darkspawn.

As for the Qunari given that we have seen very little of what they are truly capable of it's hard to tell. The only time we see the qunari in action is during the battle for Kirkwall in which they manage to nearly overtake the city. But this is not a good example as the qunari lack their technolgical advantage and take the city unaware. Otherwise we must rely on codex entries (which i'm not familiar with).

Ultimately mages will always be born, the world of Thedas is liked with the fade and a mage is an awakened dreamer (I think?) with the power to affect the physical world. It's not even completly down to genetics either becuase mages can be born to parents with no magic in their background, although it is possible that all mortals possess some magical heritage and it is simply a matter of luck (or divine will) if it is activated. Likewise children born to magical parents do not always inherit the gift (curse?) like Carver in DA2. 

Edit: Perhaps some souls are simply born more sensitive to the fade or develop a deeper connection as they age resulting in them showing magical tendencies.

I can think of a few ways in which the mages could die out
1) A genetic mutation results in human/elves etc becoming immune to the fade in a similar way to the dwarfs (something about their proximity to lyrium and the fact that they do not enter the fade when they sleep)
2) The major powers simply deciding enough is enough and issuing kill orders for all children born mages.
3) Something drastic happening to the Fade or the Veil which leaves thee mortal races unable to utilize magic.

Otherwise I'm not fussed if guns become part of DA as long as they
1) can be explained in lore
2) are not overpowered

Modifié par Kais Endac, 11 mai 2013 - 12:29 .

[Kais Endac]

Also while I am not fussed about bringing guns in I don't think they would fit the setting. (Edit: oops watch while I say one thing and then go on to state how they could be implemented into gameplay) 

Although very early guns could be implemented into the game with little changes to gameplay given the fact that as many have said they were extremely unreliable/inaccurate etc.

They would not replace the traditional warrior/rogue/mage templates on the field of battle. Knights in plate armor would still be highly effective in battle as would archers who would have a greater range of fire. And mages.... well they could do what they always do roast anyone who gets in their way

As early guns used musket balls which were basically small lead balls that had a accurate range of about 150 yards they could be used in game for close range encounters effective against lightly armored enemies.

So perhaps civilian militias could use them and wear light armor or clothing making them easier to kill.

Modifié par Kais Endac, 11 mai 2013 - 12:42 .

[garrusfan1]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

You do realize the earliest guns really, really sucked right? Due to how much more expensive they were to produce than a bow, and how much they tended to be inaccurate, because the concept of a bored barrel wasn't thought up until the late 1700's, hundreds of years after firearms were being used.

I believe grapeshot was developed around, what, the 1500s?  That would be extremely effective against the amassed Darkspawn hordes.

And the Qunari, if I recall correctly, do have cannons. :happy:

grapeshot was used in huge cannons and the only reason guns were origninally favored over bows and crossbows was because an archer took a long time to train and you just showed them how to reload and point a gun it saved time. cannons were the only gun that worked better then the old alternative weapon it replaced. the original guns you had to light a fuse then point the gun and hold it for a few second waiting for it to fire. sometimes they would explode in your hands. also grapeshot could have the same effect by putting smaller rocks or whatever you used in a catapult and put alot in them basically that was the same principal

[Cainhurst Crow]

garrusfan1 wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

You do realize the earliest guns really, really sucked right? Due to how much more expensive they were to produce than a bow, and how much they tended to be inaccurate, because the concept of a bored barrel wasn't thought up until the late 1700's, hundreds of years after firearms were being used.

I believe grapeshot was developed around, what, the 1500s?  That would be extremely effective against the amassed Darkspawn hordes.

And the Qunari, if I recall correctly, do have cannons. :happy:

grapeshot was used in huge cannons and the only reason guns were origninally favored over bows and crossbows was because an archer took a long time to train and you just showed them how to reload and point a gun it saved time. cannons were the only gun that worked better then the old alternative weapon it replaced. the original guns you had to light a fuse then point the gun and hold it for a few second waiting for it to fire. sometimes they would explode in your hands. also grapeshot could have the same effect by putting smaller rocks or whatever you used in a catapult and put alot in them basically that was the same principal

Ballista's were still more accurate, but they got phased out quickly after cannon's were cheaper to make. But a cannon is not the same as a firearm. A cannon is heavy artilery, and firearms are non-heavy artilery.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 11 mai 2013 - 12:39 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Kais Endac wrote...

I can think of a few ways in which the mages could die out
1) A genetic mutation results in human/elves etc becoming immune to the fade in a similar way to the dwarfs (something about their proximity to lyrium and the fact that they do not enter the fade when they sleep)
2) The major powers simply deciding enough is enough and issuing kill orders for all children born mages.
3) Something drastic happening to the Fade or the Veil which leaves thee mortal races unable to utilize magic.

It'll have to be the third one. It is very unlikely that any single genetic mutation would do that for the entire elven and human races, and the Tevinters will never go for 2. Nor will the other major powers while the Tevinters have theirs and the Qunari have cannons. Of course, if all the mages do go extinct, the Joining is impossible. Therefore, the spawn win.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 11 mai 2013 - 12:49 .

[garrusfan1]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

garrusfan1 wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

You do realize the earliest guns really, really sucked right? Due to how much more expensive they were to produce than a bow, and how much they tended to be inaccurate, because the concept of a bored barrel wasn't thought up until the late 1700's, hundreds of years after firearms were being used.

I believe grapeshot was developed around, what, the 1500s?  That would be extremely effective against the amassed Darkspawn hordes.

And the Qunari, if I recall correctly, do have cannons. :happy:

grapeshot was used in huge cannons and the only reason guns were origninally favored over bows and crossbows was because an archer took a long time to train and you just showed them how to reload and point a gun it saved time. cannons were the only gun that worked better then the old alternative weapon it replaced. the original guns you had to light a fuse then point the gun and hold it for a few second waiting for it to fire. sometimes they would explode in your hands. also grapeshot could have the same effect by putting smaller rocks or whatever you used in a catapult and put alot in them basically that was the same principal

Ballista's were still more accurate, but they got phased out quickly after cannon's were cheaper to make. But a cannon is not the same as a firearm. A cannon is heavy artilery, and firearms are non-heavy artilery.

I think you mean a trebuchet that was the top of the line in siege war fare until the canons. but I meant black powder not firearm like a musket I should have been specific.

[Kais Endac]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Kais Endac wrote...

I can think of a few ways in which the mages could die out
1) A genetic mutation results in human/elves etc becoming immune to the fade in a similar way to the dwarfs (something about their proximity to lyrium and the fact that they do not enter the fade when they sleep)
2) The major powers simply deciding enough is enough and issuing kill orders for all children born mages.
3) Something drastic happening to the Fade or the Veil which leaves thee mortal races unable to utilize magic.

It'll have to be the third one. It is very unlikely that any single genetic mutation would do that for the entire elven and human races, and the Tevinters will never go for 2. Nor will the other major powers while the Tevinters have theirs and the Qunari have cannons. Of course, if all the mages do go extinct, the Joining is impossible. Therefore, the spawn win.

Yea the third seemed the more likely I only included the other two because well.... I wanted it to seem like I thought it through. I think the mutation thing is pretty much impossible, a virus could do a good job of killing off mages although again it would have to cross the species barrier.

I only mentioned it because some others were talking about it, it made me lmao though. 

Good thing bioware will never kill the mages off.

Also I never though about the joining I forgot that mages are needed to prepare the ritual.

Mages are the future, join us brothers and sisters as we shoot lightning at the foolish:devil: (couldn't think of anything better to say <_<)

Modifié par Kais Endac, 11 mai 2013 - 01:01 .

[garrusfan1]

Kais Endac wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Kais Endac wrote...

I can think of a few ways in which the mages could die out
1) A genetic mutation results in human/elves etc becoming immune to the fade in a similar way to the dwarfs (something about their proximity to lyrium and the fact that they do not enter the fade when they sleep)
2) The major powers simply deciding enough is enough and issuing kill orders for all children born mages.
3) Something drastic happening to the Fade or the Veil which leaves thee mortal races unable to utilize magic.

It'll have to be the third one. It is very unlikely that any single genetic mutation would do that for the entire elven and human races, and the Tevinters will never go for 2. Nor will the other major powers while the Tevinters have theirs and the Qunari have cannons. Of course, if all the mages do go extinct, the Joining is impossible. Therefore, the spawn win.

Yea the third seemed the more likely I only included the other two because well.... I wanted it to seem like I thought it through. I think the mutation thing is pretty much impossible, a virus could do a good job of killing off mages although again it would have to cross the species barrier.

I only mentioned it because some others were talking about it, it made me lmao though. 

Good thing bioware will never kill the mages off.

Also I never though about the joining I forgot that mages are needed to prepare the ritual.

Mages are the future, join us brothers and sisters as we shoot lightning at the foolish:devil: (couldn't think of anything better to say <_<)

so either mutation or a weird spirit thing or genocide

[Kais Endac]

garrusfan1 wrote...

Kais Endac wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Kais Endac wrote...

I can think of a few ways in which the mages could die out
1) A genetic mutation results in human/elves etc becoming immune to the fade in a similar way to the dwarfs (something about their proximity to lyrium and the fact that they do not enter the fade when they sleep)
2) The major powers simply deciding enough is enough and issuing kill orders for all children born mages.
3) Something drastic happening to the Fade or the Veil which leaves thee mortal races unable to utilize magic.

It'll have to be the third one. It is very unlikely that any single genetic mutation would do that for the entire elven and human races, and the Tevinters will never go for 2. Nor will the other major powers while the Tevinters have theirs and the Qunari have cannons. Of course, if all the mages do go extinct, the Joining is impossible. Therefore, the spawn win.

Yea the third seemed the more likely I only included the other two because well.... I wanted it to seem like I thought it through. I think the mutation thing is pretty much impossible, a virus could do a good job of killing off mages although again it would have to cross the species barrier.

I only mentioned it because some others were talking about it, it made me lmao though. 

Good thing bioware will never kill the mages off.

Also I never though about the joining I forgot that mages are needed to prepare the ritual.

Mages are the future, join us brothers and sisters as we shoot lightning at the foolish:devil: (couldn't think of anything better to say <_<)

so either mutation or a weird spirit thing or genocide

Im my opinion? Yea pretty much its very unlikly though (I hope, unless the Qunari develop their own version of the genophage)

Given that some characters mention that there has been an increase in mages I think something is happening in Thedas probably related to DA3.

Personally I always pick mage characters so I hope that the genocide of mages never happens, I hopw they aviod a situation like what happens in the Fable series which results in the magic being dumbed down in each succesive game.

Modifié par Kais Endac, 11 mai 2013 - 01:15 .

[garrusfan1]

Kais Endac wrote...

garrusfan1 wrote...

Kais Endac wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Kais Endac wrote...

I can think of a few ways in which the mages could die out
1) A genetic mutation results in human/elves etc becoming immune to the fade in a similar way to the dwarfs (something about their proximity to lyrium and the fact that they do not enter the fade when they sleep)
2) The major powers simply deciding enough is enough and issuing kill orders for all children born mages.
3) Something drastic happening to the Fade or the Veil which leaves thee mortal races unable to utilize magic.

It'll have to be the third one. It is very unlikely that any single genetic mutation would do that for the entire elven and human races, and the Tevinters will never go for 2. Nor will the other major powers while the Tevinters have theirs and the Qunari have cannons. Of course, if all the mages do go extinct, the Joining is impossible. Therefore, the spawn win.

Yea the third seemed the more likely I only included the other two because well.... I wanted it to seem like I thought it through. I think the mutation thing is pretty much impossible, a virus could do a good job of killing off mages although again it would have to cross the species barrier.

I only mentioned it because some others were talking about it, it made me lmao though. 

Good thing bioware will never kill the mages off.

Also I never though about the joining I forgot that mages are needed to prepare the ritual.

Mages are the future, join us brothers and sisters as we shoot lightning at the foolish:devil: (couldn't think of anything better to say <_<)

so either mutation or a weird spirit thing or genocide

Im my opinion? Yea pretty much

Given that some character mention that there has been an increase in mages I think something is happening probably related to DA3.

Personally I always pick mage characters so I hope that the genocide of mages never happens, like what happens in the Fable series which results in the magic being dumbed down in each succesive game.

I  pick mages in DA2 mostly but warriors and rouges in DAO. I love romacing fenris as a mage. I don't think it will be dumbed down  in DA3

[Kais Endac]

garrusfan1 wrote...
I  pick mages in DA2 mostly but warriors and rouges in DAO. I love romacing fenris as a mage. I don't think it will be dumbed down  in DA3

I think I have a slight power complex, in RPG's I always pick Elven mages, I like the idea of being able to change the world to my whims along with the long life that being a elf gives me, Unfortunatly my morality gets it the way and stops me from doing anything evil. I suppose I will have to settle for being a normal metbag .

Romancing Fenris with a mage is curious never really thought about doing that. I have sided with the Templars as a mage though.

Modifié par Kais Endac, 11 mai 2013 - 01:25 .

[garrusfan1]

Kais Endac wrote...

garrusfan1 wrote...
I  pick mages in DA2 mostly but warriors and rouges in DAO. I love romacing fenris as a mage. I don't think it will be dumbed down  in DA3

I think I have a slight power complex, in RPG's I always pick Elven mages, I like the idea of being able to change the world to my whims along with the long life that being a elf gives me, Unfortunatly my morality gets it the way and stops me from doing anything evil. I suppose I will have to settle for being a normal metbag .

Romancing Fenris with a mage is curious never really thought about doing that. I have sided with the Templars as a mage though.

I tend to side with templars even though I disagree with them simply because I love the idea of mage hawk as vicount take you magic is meant to serve man and never to rule over them and suck it. if bethany is  in the circle though I can't do it. also I tend to have strong morales as well in RPGs like I can't ever kill characters when their is an option not too even if I don't like them

[Kais Endac]

garrusfan1 wrote...

Kais Endac wrote...

garrusfan1 wrote...
I  pick mages in DA2 mostly but warriors and rouges in DAO. I love romacing fenris as a mage. I don't think it will be dumbed down  in DA3

I think I have a slight power complex, in RPG's I always pick Elven mages, I like the idea of being able to change the world to my whims along with the long life that being a elf gives me, Unfortunatly my morality gets it the way and stops me from doing anything evil. I suppose I will have to settle for being a normal metbag .

Romancing Fenris with a mage is curious never really thought about doing that. I have sided with the Templars as a mage though.

I tend to side with templars even though I disagree with them simply because I love the idea of mage hawk as vicount take you magic is meant to serve man and never to rule over them and suck it. if bethany is  in the circle though I can't do it. also I tend to have strong morales as well in RPGs like I can't ever kill characters when their is an option not too even if I don't like them

Same here If i can spare someone I will, it has come back to bite me in the ass a few times too

Mostly I make sure Bethany/Carver goes to the Wardens it is a death sentence but I'm not fond of the Templars and the Circle in Kirkwall is little more than a prison. Overall I side with the Templars and rationise it as saving as many commoners in Kirwall as possible while sparing the mages that surrender, although I would have liked a more neutral option as both leave a bad taste. Still I suppose someone of Hawke's importance in the city would have to take a side.