1081 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I suppose it does, amigo. Reminds me of Alistair talking about seeing the Harrowing, and how that influenced him to stop wanting to be a templar (in the sense you get insight into the character that you wouldn't have realized from the initial encounter). I also wonder how Cullen will react to being in the company of a mage with authority, if the speculation about 'The Inquisitor' is accurate.

Perhaps the Cullen fans will finally learn his last name. 

The speculation about the Inquisitor is pretty much confirmed by now, at least as the PC (Flyinn stated this in a new blog). It's not confirmed that the PC will be in a position in authority in the Inquisition, but I doubt that we'll not be in a position of authority. 

I meant the latter, as the idea of an apostate with authority over non-mages would seem to run counter to the ideals that Cullen might have, especially if he's still an active templar. With a former Circle mage as the protagonist, I think that the relationship between the two could end up very antagonistic. What do you think?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

That took me long enough that I'm shocked I haven't been ninja'd. Page 12, near the bottom, since this site apparently won't let me link directly to it.

Thanks..you could have quoted it, like so:

A Knight-Commander is second-in-command next to the Grand Cleric. With
Elthina's death, Meredith was legally in command of the Kirkwall
Chantry-- such as it was, and certainly in the absence of any ranking
Revered Mother or the Divine herself. Cullen's objection was not that
her invocation of the Rite was illegal, it was that it was unjustified.

This tough doesn't say that the Divine/Chantry would argue against the Annulment - CULLEN thought it was unjustified.
Given Merediths stated reason (Anders blowing up the Chantry) and behavior, Cullen was right to question it...
BUT
Cullen is not the Chantry.

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...



I meant the latter, as the idea of an apostate with authority over non-mages would seem to run counter to the ideals that Cullen might have, especially if he's still an active templar. With a former Circle mage as the protagonist, I think that the relationship between the two could end up very antagonistic. What do you think?

I think it'd depend on why Cullen would join the player. If he decides to help the Inquisition to stop the demon threat (or was sent to help it), he might think that being under a mage is necessary. Or it could be that he left the templar for completely join the Inquisition. I'm not sure how much plausible this theory could be, but in this case there should be less problems, expecially if the organization is composed (as I believe) by both mages and non-mages. It'd be granted that some mages would be in a higher position than him.
Regardless, there'll obviously be some frictions between him and a mage PC, that could vary depending if the events of Kirkwall partally changes his beliefs (he should still be pro-templar/pro-Chantry, but not as extremist as in DA2), and the beliefs (and how those beliefs will be expressed) of the PC.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Didn't Gaider just say that Meredith would have to stand trial? That means, she will get a chance to justify her actions, and the Chantry might even have agreed with her actions. Not likely though, but theoretically anyway.

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I meant the latter, as the idea of an apostate with authority over non-mages would seem to run counter to the ideals that Cullen might have, especially if he's still an active templar. With a former Circle mage as the protagonist, I think that the relationship between the two could end up very antagonistic. What do you think?

I think it'd depend on why Cullen would join the player. If he decides to help the Inquisition to stop the demon threat (or was sent to help it), he might think that being under a mage is necessary. Or it could be that he left the templar for completely join the Inquisition.

True, his motives would play a role. If the Champion opposed Meredith, he might differ than if the Champion supported Meredith. Maybe that determines what side he picked during the schism. Do you think Cullen could have been sent from Lambert or Cassandra's camp?

hhh89 wrote...

I'm not sure how much plausible this theory could be, but in this case there should be less problems, expecially if the organization is composed (as I believe) by both mages and non-mages. It'd be granted that some mages would be in a higher position than him.

Maybe the Hero of Ferelden from the Circle turned Arl of Amaranthine and the apostate Champion of Kirkwall might factor into his view as prior precedents of free mages with power.

hhh89 wrote...

Regardless, there'll obviously be some frictions between him and a mage PC, that could vary depending if the events of Kirkwall partally changes his beliefs (he should still be pro-templar/pro-Chantry, but not as extremist as in DA2), and the beliefs (and how those beliefs will be expressed) of the PC.

Like a former Circle mage from Andoral's Reach who agreed with Fiona.

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...

True, his motives would play a role. If the Champion opposed Meredith, he might differ than if the Champion supported Meredith. Maybe that determines what side he picked during the schism. Do you think Cullen could have been sent from Lambert or Cassandra's camp?

To be honest, at this point I really can't say if Cullen decided to join Lambert or following the Divine/Cassandra. It depends on how Bioware is going to develop him further.
Plus,if Cassandra and Cullen are both companions, I doubt they'd give us two companions from the same side, so Cullen in this case would be from Lambert's (or whoever templar is in charge) side. If Cassandra would be a major NPC, there are higher chances that he could be from Cassandra's siide.

Maybe the Hero of Ferelden from the Circle turned Arl of Amaranthine and the apostate Champion of Kirkwall might factor into his view as prior precedents of free mages with power.

It might. Though I believe that this would lead to some additional dialogues at most. The bulk of his hypothetical change would be based (in my opinion) from what happened in Kirkwall.

Like a former Circle mage from Andoral's Reach who agreed with Fiona.

Yes, if Cullen didn't change much, and a mage PC fully embrace Fiona's stance, I believe there might be more problems between them.

Modifié par hhh89, 15 juin 2013 - 09:41 .

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

Much appriciated Lobsel.

So there's nothing stating that these mages specifically weren't spared, just that RoA's generally do not leave many survivors. That's quite the difference.

Correction:  A Right of Annulment doesn't leave ANY mage survivors (since at the time Tranquil were not considered mages any more under chantry law).  WoG is very clear about that.

-Polaris

[Iakus]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Much appriciated Lobsel.

So there's nothing stating that these mages specifically weren't spared, just that RoA's generally do not leave many survivors. That's quite the difference.

Correction:  A Right of Annulment doesn't leave ANY mage survivors (since at the time Tranquil were not considered mages any more under chantry law).  WoG is very clear about that.

-Polaris

Cullen does speak in favor of sparing a group of apprentices that surrender if you side with the templars to annul the Circle.

[TCBC_Freak]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Eh? When was this stated?
Because I see no evidence ingame that they wouldn't be spared or that they would be tranquilized. Cullen even goes so far as to say that he considers it to be the duty of a templar to wait until their guilt is proven. It's a rather major thing to contradict later...

I believe it's from a thread where Gaider talked about what happens to hypothetical mages who actually survive a Right of Annulment:

David Gaider wrote...

The issue is this:

By the time the Right of Annulment is invoked, the tower in question has moved beyond the possibility of mages being brought under control enough that Tranquility would even be possible. It's possible some mages might survive the initial assault, but the order cannot be "take any prisoners you can" simply because by that point a mage might have been corrupted and become a blood mage... something which cannot be detected under normal circumstances. Thus capturing them becomes a means for them to escape the quarantine.

So therefore the order is "kill everyone". At the end of the day, if any mages are still alive for whatever reason... then, yes, I imagine they could theoretically be made Tranquil as opposed to executed outright.

I think you're reading into what he is saying, if the RoA is revoked then the paramiters no longer apply, those mages wouldn't need to be killed, it hinges on the RoA being applyed, after all in DAO Gregor sends for the RoA because he can't see any other option, but then the Warden solves the problem and he doesn't need it anymore. So just asking for it, or even starting to prepare for it doesn't mean you can't turn and stop it. So if the person who gave the order is found to be crazy and corrupted and shouldn't have give the order it is possible that any mages found alive are kept alive because the RoA wasn't fully in acted and was revoked. What he is talking about is a fully acted RoA, and how it would work, because we've never seen it in game so he's explaining what the real RoA would be like and result in, he isn't speaking about what happens in the games because we've never seen a real justified RoA.

[Xilizhra]

Cullen does speak in favor of sparing a group of apprentices that surrender if you side with the templars to annul the Circle.

He considers Tranquility to be better than death.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]dragonflight288 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I think you misunderstood Gaider.
Meredith inacted the RoA immediately, effectively holding 3 positions - Knight Commadner, Viscount and now taking hte role of Reverend Mother -  that was the issue.
That doesn't mean that the RoA would have been denied by the next Reverend Mother.

[/quote][/quote]

But at that exact moment, Gaider said Meredith had the legal authority, and Gaider said it was not justified, and by making the order and following through on it, Gaider said Meredith was effectively in BIG trouble with the Divine and her superiors.

Take it however you want, Gaider made it clear that the Rite of Annulment, under the circumstances in the game and the reasons Meredith gave, was completely unjustified.
[/quote]

Nope.

Sauce or it didn't happen.
[/quote]

That took me long enough that I'm shocked I haven't been ninja'd. Page 12, near the bottom, since this site apparently won't let me link directly to it.
[/quote]

There's more:

http://social.biowar...1812/21#6911376

[quote]David Gaidar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
OK moving on then I think we can agree with Knight Captain Cullen that per WoG, Meridith's Rite of Annulment was legal (barely) but hardly justied. Personaly I think that alone cost Meridith the loyalty of most of her Templars when it matters most in confronting the Champion...assuming a pro-mage ending. If you side with the mages and/or are a mage, Meridith is perfectly and legally justified in calling for your execution but the Templars won't do it even if you are a mage defending the circle. IMHO it's because most of the Templars know what Varric baldly states to Cassanda. You were protecting the mages aginst a gross injustice....THEIR injustice...and they know it.[/quote]

Oh, absolutely. Just because something is legal does not necessarily make it right or moral. I suspect what Cullen would have argued, given the chance, was that the Divine would never have agreed to the Rite of Annulment in this case. Anyone, even a Grand Cleric, would still be responsible for their actions in calling such a desperate measure after the fact
[/quote]

I believe there are other DG quotes out there (I'll look in my thread that first questioned the legality of Meredith's Right of Annulment) that pretty much say that while legal, Meredith would have been in deep kimchee had she lived.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 15 juin 2013 - 11:06 .

[IanPolaris]

iakus wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Much appriciated Lobsel.

So there's nothing stating that these mages specifically weren't spared, just that RoA's generally do not leave many survivors. That's quite the difference.

Correction:  A Right of Annulment doesn't leave ANY mage survivors (since at the time Tranquil were not considered mages any more under chantry law).  WoG is very clear about that.

-Polaris

Cullen does speak in favor of sparing a group of apprentices that surrender if you side with the templars to annul the Circle.

Yes, but both the canon and WoG are clear.  If the mages are allowed to live after a declaired RoA, they must be made tranquil and that's very much the exception.  Actually DA2 cheated a lot (by not having mage children to kill although Bethany clearly says they exist) and by allowing you to side with the Templars and not kill your own sister.

-POlaris

[IanPolaris]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Eh? When was this stated?
Because I see no evidence ingame that they wouldn't be spared or that they would be tranquilized. Cullen even goes so far as to say that he considers it to be the duty of a templar to wait until their guilt is proven. It's a rather major thing to contradict later...

I believe it's from a thread where Gaider talked about what happens to hypothetical mages who actually survive a Right of Annulment:

David Gaider wrote...

The issue is this:

By the time the Right of Annulment is invoked, the tower in question has moved beyond the possibility of mages being brought under control enough that Tranquility would even be possible. It's possible some mages might survive the initial assault, but the order cannot be "take any prisoners you can" simply because by that point a mage might have been corrupted and become a blood mage... something which cannot be detected under normal circumstances. Thus capturing them becomes a means for them to escape the quarantine.

So therefore the order is "kill everyone". At the end of the day, if any mages are still alive for whatever reason... then, yes, I imagine they could theoretically be made Tranquil as opposed to executed outright.

I think you're reading into what he is saying, if the RoA is revoked then the paramiters no longer apply, those mages wouldn't need to be killed, it hinges on the RoA being applyed, after all in DAO Gregor sends for the RoA because he can't see any other option, but then the Warden solves the problem and he doesn't need it anymore. So just asking for it, or even starting to prepare for it doesn't mean you can't turn and stop it. So if the person who gave the order is found to be crazy and corrupted and shouldn't have give the order it is possible that any mages found alive are kept alive because the RoA wasn't fully in acted and was revoked. What he is talking about is a fully acted RoA, and how it would work, because we've never seen it in game so he's explaining what the real RoA would be like and result in, he isn't speaking about what happens in the games because we've never seen a real justified RoA.

The RIght of Annulment is never revoked and that clearly means that all mages under Chanty law in the circle must be terminated, down to the last child (and there ARE children in the circle).  The only difference is that if Hawke sides with the mges, the Right of Annulment fails, but it's never called off or revoked.

-Polaris

[dragonflight288]

Filament wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
Take it however you want, Gaider made it clear that the Rite of Annulment, under the circumstances in the game and the reasons Meredith gave, was completely unjustified. 

As if we needed Gaider's confirmation for that to be obvious.

We didn't, but some people on both sides apparently need Gaider or another developer to spell it out because they can't be bothered to accept a fact that they don't want to believe. *shrug*

[dragonflight288]

crap, double post, I'll submit the editted one after this....unusual, I know, the double post notice being before the actual post.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 15 juin 2013 - 11:21 .

[dragonflight288]

[quote]dragonflight288 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]dragonflight288 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I think you misunderstood Gaider.
Meredith inacted the RoA immediately, effectively holding 3 positions - Knight Commadner, Viscount and now taking hte role of Reverend Mother -  that was the issue.
That doesn't mean that the RoA would have been denied by the next Reverend Mother.

[/quote][/quote]

But at that exact moment, Gaider said Meredith had the legal authority, and Gaider said it was not justified, and by making the order and following through on it, Gaider said Meredith was effectively in BIG trouble with the Divine and her superiors.

Take it however you want, Gaider made it clear that the Rite of Annulment, under the circumstances in the game and the reasons Meredith gave, was completely unjustified.
[/quote][quote]

Nope.

Sauce or it didn't happen.


[/quote][/quote]

[quote]Davide Gaider wrote...

A Knight-Commander is second-in-command next to the Grand Cleric. With Elthina's death, Meredith was legally in command of the Kirkwall Chantry-- such as it was, and certainly in the absence of any ranking Revered Mother or the Divine herself. Cullen's objection was not that her invocation of the Rite was illegal, it was that it was unjustified.[/quote]

There, proof positive that Gaider said the Rite of Annulment was unjustified.

[quote]Oh, absolutely. Just because something is legal does not necessarily make it right or moral. I suspect what Cullen would have argued, given the chance, was that the Divine would never have agreed to the Rite of Annulment in this case. Anyone, even a Grand Cleric, would still be responsible for their actions in calling such a desperate measure after the fact.[/quote]

And he also said this, which means that Meredith did not have the moral high ground and although legal, was not th right thing to do.

[/quote]

[EmperorSahlertz]

Gaider said that CULLEN'S argument would be that the Annulment was unjustified....

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Gaider said that CULLEN'S argument would be that the Annulment was unjustified....

Nope.  Read DG's post again.  The first two words are "Oh absolutely" that is in agreement with my take that Meredith was morally in the wrong and would have faced some hard questions (at minimum) from the Chantry.  He later expounds on that by saying that this would certainly be Cullen's argument against the Right had he been permitted to make it.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

You could easily make an argument that the Right of Annulment is by definition immoral. That doesn't however mean that it is an illegal, or uncalled for action. And all Gaider initially agrees with, is that a legal action is not neccesarily a moral one. You are putting words in his mouth, if you take that sentence as confirmation of him WoG'ing the Annulment as immoral.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Gaider said that CULLEN'S argument would be that the Annulment was unjustified....

So you're saying that the execution of hundreds of men, women, and children for something they didn't do was justified in the eyes of the Andrastian Chantry?

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You could easily make an argument that the Right of Annulment is by definition immoral. That doesn't however mean that it is an illegal, or uncalled for action. And all Gaider initially agrees with, is that a legal action is not neccesarily a moral one. You are putting words in his mouth, if you take that sentence as confirmation of him WoG'ing the Annulment as immoral.

You are deliberately misreading DG's own post.  He pretty much calls out that particular Right as immoral irrespective of the issue as a whole.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Gaider said that CULLEN'S argument would be that the Annulment was unjustified....

So you're saying that the execution of hundreds of men, women, and children for something they didn't do was justified in the eyes of the Andrastian Chantry?

No. I'm trying to explain to people, exactly what Gaider did say, and what he didn't say.

And do please try and update your rethoric.... It is getting a little old..

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You could easily make an argument that the Right of Annulment is by definition immoral. That doesn't however mean that it is an illegal, or uncalled for action. And all Gaider initially agrees with, is that a legal action is not neccesarily a moral one. You are putting words in his mouth, if you take that sentence as confirmation of him WoG'ing the Annulment as immoral.

You are deliberately misreading DG's own post.  He pretty much calls out that particular Right as immoral irrespective of the issue as a whole.

-Polaris

Funny. That's exactly what I'd say you are doing. Especically since he in no way shape or form is saying what you claim he is. While I don't doubt that anyone would mean the Annulment was immoral, that isn't what Gaider was saying.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Funny. That's exactly what I'd say you are doing. Especically since he in no way shape or form is saying what you claim he is. While I don't doubt that anyone would mean the Annulment was immoral, that isn't what Gaider was saying.

I posted DG's comment directly and in context.  It's pretty damned clear that he is referring to Meredith's specific annulment as being morally wrong (especially since the passage he's responding to...written my me...is extremely specific to Meredith's annulment).

Meredith did nasty things to the pooch.  Just admit this and move on.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Funny. That's exactly what I'd say you are doing. Especically since he in no way shape or form is saying what you claim he is. While I don't doubt that anyone would mean the Annulment was immoral, that isn't what Gaider was saying.

I posted DG's comment directly and in context.  It's pretty damned clear that he is referring to Meredith's specific annulment as being morally wrong (especially since the passage he's responding to...written my me...is extremely specific to Meredith's annulment).

Meredith did nasty things to the pooch.  Just admit this and move on.

-Polaris

Im not disputing wether or not Meredith's actions were immoral. I'm saying that DG didn't say what you are claiming he did. While i'm sure he personally agrees, that it was an immoral action, that is not what he was specifically saying in that sentence. Since if he did, it could be used as evidence that one action was morally superior to the other. Kind of like what you are attempting to do right now.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

So you're saying that the execution of hundreds of men, women, and children for something they didn't do was justified in the eyes of the Andrastian Chantry?

No. I'm trying to explain to people, exactly what Gaider did say, and what he didn't say.

And do please try and update your rethoric.... It is getting a little old. 

Meredith had the guilty person right in front of her, and she killed an entire population of people for something that this specific man did and proceeded to handwave the existance of the man who actually destroyed the Kirkwall Chantry and killed Granc Cleric Elthina. Her only justification is that she was going to appease a hypothetical mob. She doesn't seem to have much of an excuse if she was brought before the proper authorities and she had to explain her actions.