1081 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

If that does not fit your idea of the lore, well I don't know what to tell you. Sorry to hear you aren't getting what you wanted.  Until any of the writers flat out states that Cullen lied through his teeth and had them all executed/tranquilised I'll keep my view on the whole matter. And if that is an unacceptable interpretation to you, well then we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

It's not my lore it's the lore of the game.  Once a circle has been declared irredeemable, no mages from that circle can be allowed to survive.  This is stated very plainly both in the game lore and various conversations.

Too bad, you can't accept that.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
That is not a law, it is a Right. An allowance to use any means necessary.
Like going to Defcon 5 and being authorized to launch every nuke you have if deemed necessary. That doesn't mean you MUST do it.

Actually the law applies to the Right.  The Right is the right to completely eliminate a circle.  However, the law is very clear (and it's stated so in the lore many times and places) that once a Right of Annulment has been declared, no mage from the Circle can be allowed to survive.  DG has confirmed that (look at his own quotes on this thread yourself!).

That is not my 'interpretation' or 'my lore'.  It is THE LORE and Chantry Law.  Unless the Right was rescinded (which Cullen never does) no mage is allowed to survive.  At best DG allows for the outside possibility of captured mages being made tranquil (which effectively removes them as mages), but the principle is exactly the same.

-Polaris

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...

It's not my lore it's the lore of the game.  Once a circle has been declared irredeemable, no mages from that circle can be allowed to survive.  This is stated very plainly both in the game lore and various conversations.

Too bad, you can't accept that.

-Polaris

Sigh...

My problem Ian, is not that what the lore says. I know it does say that. My problem lie with the assumtion that because it is what the lore says about something generally it must be true in every case.
My problem lie with you dragging up a quote that is not applicable to this situation specifically and then using it in absolute terms to beat me over the head with to prove I am wrong in interpreting the this particular instance differently than you. I'm reading your posts in a very passive aggressive tone which I guess offends me a bit. As if your interpretation is more correct than mine, despite that both are just that... interpretation. I responded in kind... which was my fault and regarding which I apologise.

Yes, the idea of a RoA is to kill every single mage in a circle. I recognice that. Yes, the lore says that there can be no non-tranquil survivors. Yes, we never see the RoA withdrawn. Yes, Cullen seems to at least initially go along with his orders.

However, because a RoA is about complete eradication does not mean these mages were not allowed to survive if you so choose. An abberration? Sure. But templars and Cullen are all human... they can err in their orders. They can change their minds. They can make exceptions. They aren't machines that must pursue the logical conclusion no matter what.
Much like how a turn veil does not by guarantee make all mages possessed, no matter what.

That's why I don't accept the quote as evidence. Now, if you find me a quote about this annulment specifically or something ingame that contradicts my interpretation, then I will listen. Much like how Xil pointed out that him showing mercy is not guarantee that they're not tranquilized. That is an argument I accept (though more is needed to convince me).

Until I've seen evidence that I am wrong in this particular case, I'll keep believing Cullen did something human and spared those three or four and thus made an exception to what a RoA normally is. Fair enough?

Modifié par Sir JK, 16 juin 2013 - 02:50 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
That is not a law, it is a Right. An allowance to use any means necessary.
Like going to Defcon 5 and being authorized to launch every nuke you have if deemed necessary. That doesn't mean you MUST do it.

Actually the law applies to the Right.  The Right is the right to completely eliminate a circle.  However, the law is very clear (and it's stated so in the lore many times and places) that once a Right of Annulment has been declared, no mage from the Circle can be allowed to survive.  DG has confirmed that (look at his own quotes on this thread yourself!).

That is not my 'interpretation' or 'my lore'.  It is THE LORE and Chantry Law.  Unless the Right was rescinded (which Cullen never does) no mage is allowed to survive.  At best DG allows for the outside possibility of captured mages being made tranquil (which effectively removes them as mages), but the principle is exactly the same.

-Polaris

No.

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

Until I've seen evidence that I am wrong in this particular case, I'll keep believing Cullen did something human and spared those three or four and thus made an exception to what a RoA normally is. Fair enough?

Here's the deal.  If Cullen wanted to keep those mages alive (or for that matter any captured mages alive) he could have rescinded the Right of Annulment the moment he removed Meredith from authority.  In fact if Cullen truly believed that this Right wasn't proper, this should have been the first order out of his lips (in order to save what he can).

It wasn't.  Not once do we hear or get any indication that Cullen ever reversed the Right of Annulment, nor if Hawke sided with the Templars do we hear of ANY mage surviving the Right of Annulment (we do if Hawke sided with the mages).

-Polaris

[LolaLei]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Until I've seen evidence that I am wrong in this particular case, I'll keep believing Cullen did something human and spared those three or four and thus made an exception to what a RoA normally is. Fair enough?

Here's the deal.  If Cullen wanted to keep those mages alive (or for that matter any captured mages alive) he could have rescinded the Right of Annulment the moment he removed Meredith from authority.  In fact if Cullen truly believed that this Right wasn't proper, this should have been the first order out of his lips (in order to save what he can).

It wasn't.  Not once do we hear or get any indication that Cullen ever reversed the Right of Annulment, nor if Hawke sided with the Templars do we hear of ANY mage surviving the Right of Annulment (we do if Hawke sided with the mages).

-Polaris

We didn't hear it because the game ended, who knows what he did after they killed Meredith. We'll find out soon enough, no doubt.

[IanPolaris]

LolaLei wrote...
We didn't hear it because the game ended, who knows what he did after they killed Meredith. We'll find out soon enough, no doubt.

No, the game did not end immediately.  There was an ongoing Right of Annulment.  People were dying.  If Cullen really believed it to be unjustified, then he could and should have ordered it rescinded immediately.  He DID rescint Meredith's arrest order on Hawke immediately after all.

Not only that, but the game makes no mention of circle survivors unless you sided with the mages.

-Polaris

[LolaLei]

IanPolaris wrote...

LolaLei wrote...
We didn't hear it because the game ended, who knows what he did after they killed Meredith. We'll find out soon enough, no doubt.

No, the game did not end immediately.  There was an ongoing Right of Annulment.  People were dying.  If Cullen really believed it to be unjustified, then he could and should have ordered it rescinded immediately.  He DID rescint Meredith's arrest order on Hawke immediately after all.

Not only that, but the game makes no mention of circle survivors unless you sided with the mages.

-Polaris

Ok, firstly there's no need to be abrasive. Secondly, are you talking about the events that happen directly after slaying Meredith/Hawke escapes/Cullen bows to Hawke? Because that's what I was referring to.

[Xilizhra]

We didn't hear it because the game ended, who knows what he did after they killed Meredith. We'll find out soon enough, no doubt.

Hah. Just side with the mages and we'll never have to worry about it again.

[IanPolaris]

LolaLei wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

LolaLei wrote...
We didn't hear it because the game ended, who knows what he did after they killed Meredith. We'll find out soon enough, no doubt.

No, the game did not end immediately.  There was an ongoing Right of Annulment.  People were dying.  If Cullen really believed it to be unjustified, then he could and should have ordered it rescinded immediately.  He DID rescint Meredith's arrest order on Hawke immediately after all.

Not only that, but the game makes no mention of circle survivors unless you sided with the mages.

-Polaris

Ok, firstly there's no need to be abrasive. Secondly, are you talking about the events that happen directly after slaying Meredith/Hawke escapes/Cullen bows to Hawke? Because that's what I was referring to.

The instant Cullen ordered Meredith to stand down, he had the authority to rescind the Right of Annulment.  He didn't.

-Polaris

[LolaLei]

Xilizhra wrote...

We didn't hear it because the game ended, who knows what he did after they killed Meredith. We'll find out soon enough, no doubt.

Hah. Just side with the mages and we'll never have to worry about it again.

I always side with the mages anyway.

[imbs]

IanPolaris wrote...

LolaLei wrote...
We didn't hear it because the game ended, who knows what he did after they killed Meredith. We'll find out soon enough, no doubt.

No, the game did not end immediately.  There was an ongoing Right of Annulment.  People were dying.  If Cullen really believed it to be unjustified, then he could and should have ordered it rescinded immediately.  He DID rescint Meredith's arrest order on Hawke immediately after all.

Not only that, but the game makes no mention of circle survivors unless you sided with the mages.

-Polaris

It would have been stupid to rescind that order would it not, though? Gotta be some retalliation for blowing up the chantry or you are bound to see all kinds of other trouble from all sides. Okay it messes with the fluffy perception of Cullen, but people will always choose to see their crushes in the best possible light, so whatever. Cullen's primary selling point is his cuteness, which is unaffected, so it's all good.

[LolaLei]

IanPolaris wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

LolaLei wrote...
We didn't hear it because the game ended, who knows what he did after they killed Meredith. We'll find out soon enough, no doubt.

No, the game did not end immediately.  There was an ongoing Right of Annulment.  People were dying.  If Cullen really believed it to be unjustified, then he could and should have ordered it rescinded immediately.  He DID rescint Meredith's arrest order on Hawke immediately after all.

Not only that, but the game makes no mention of circle survivors unless you sided with the mages.

-Polaris

Ok, firstly there's no need to be abrasive. Secondly, are you talking about the events that happen directly after slaying Meredith/Hawke escapes/Cullen bows to Hawke? Because that's what I was referring to.

The instant Cullen ordered Meredith to stand down, he had the authority to rescind the Right of Annulment.  He didn't.

-Polaris

No one says anything in that scene it's done for dramatic effect. Hawke could've flipped Cullen the bird and stabbed him in the face but he/she didn't.

*Edit* Sorry, just realised I read your reply completely wrong, d'oh! 

Sure, he ordered her to stand down, but she refused. You can tell someone to do something but it doesn't mean they'll actually do it. She started waving her sword around and attacking people straight after he told her to stop, there was no time for him to revoke the annulment whilst she's flying around the Gallows flipping her sh!t.

Modifié par LolaLei, 16 juin 2013 - 04:56 .

[wiccame]

IanPolaris wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

LolaLei wrote...
We didn't hear it because the game ended, who knows what he did after they killed Meredith. We'll find out soon enough, no doubt.

No, the game did not end immediately.  There was an ongoing Right of Annulment.  People were dying.  If Cullen really believed it to be unjustified, then he could and should have ordered it rescinded immediately.  He DID rescint Meredith's arrest order on Hawke immediately after all.

Not only that, but the game makes no mention of circle survivors unless you sided with the mages.

-Polaris

Ok, firstly there's no need to be abrasive. Secondly, are you talking about the events that happen directly after slaying Meredith/Hawke escapes/Cullen bows to Hawke? Because that's what I was referring to.

The instant Cullen ordered Meredith to stand down, he had the authority to rescind the Right of Annulment.  He didn't.

-Polaris

She basically attacked them right after that. I think his first thought was dealing with her.

[IanPolaris]

LolaLei wrote...

Sure, he ordered her to stand down, but she refused. You can tell someone to do something but it doesn't mean they'll actually do it. She started waving her sword around and attacking people straight after he told her to stop, there was no time for him to revoke the annulment whilst she's flying around the Gallows flipping her sh!t.

I disagree.  There was time enough for Meredith to make an entire speech.  There was time enough for Cullen to say she'd have to go through him.  There was time enough to rescind the right.

Here's the other thing.  Whatever we think of Meredith, her final order to arrest/kill Hawke if Hawke backed the circle is actually perfectly legal.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

I'd also note that having a Right of Annulment be rescinded after the fact is not common (in fact I don't think it's ever happened regardless of the authority to do so). Certainly it's more uncommon then having the Templars mutiny against a Knight Commander (and mutiny happens in almost every military organization at some point and time).

That being so, if Cullen had rescinded the Right, Cassandra should have mentioned it and asked Varric why.

-Polaris

[R2s Muse]

I'm curious about this very clear case of Cullen rescinding the order to arrest Hawke?? He questions Meredith about how they were going to arrest her, and then tells Meredith this isn't what the Order stands for and tells her to stand down. You can interpret the final scenes of Cullen bowing or letting Hawke go as him somewhere along the way issuing an official override of that command to the templars, but we don't see it on camera. By the same line of argument, there could have been a rescinding of the Right of Annulment as well. Thing is, we don't know either way, so the argument is pretty thin. Just not mentioning surviving mages in the very limited epilogue is hardly proof.

[LolaLei]

IanPolaris wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

Sure, he ordered her to stand down, but she refused. You can tell someone to do something but it doesn't mean they'll actually do it. She started waving her sword around and attacking people straight after he told her to stop, there was no time for him to revoke the annulment whilst she's flying around the Gallows flipping her sh!t.

I disagree.  There was time enough for Meredith to make an entire speech.  There was time enough for Cullen to say she'd have to go through him.  There was time enough to rescind the right.

Here's the other thing.  Whatever we think of Meredith, her final order to arrest/kill Hawke if Hawke backed the circle is actually perfectly legal.

-Polaris

Personally, if I had some unhinged woman freaking out, acting weird and waving her sword in my face my first objective would be to stop her in the same way that Cullen/Hawke did.

Revoking the rite would be something you deal with after she's dead, especially considering you're gonna need to run around finding any remaining templars to let them know that the rite has been revoked, it's not like the Gallows has a giant built in megaphone for him to bark out orders across Kirkwall for all to hear. 

Modifié par LolaLei, 16 juin 2013 - 05:10 .

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...
It's not my lore it's the lore of the game.  Once a circle has been declared irredeemable, no mages from that circle can be allowed to survive.  This is stated very plainly both in the game lore and various conversations.

Too bad, you can't accept that.

-Polaris

Ian is completely right on this point. I recall the thread where DG said that a mage who surrenders is made tranquil. I'm not sure if that doesn't mean "allowed to survive" (from the Chantry POV, at least), but it's a very different fate that execution.

From I recall in that thread, it also applied to the children. 

[IanPolaris]

R2s Muse wrote...

I'm curious about this very clear case of Cullen rescinding the order to arrest Hawke?? He questions Meredith about how they were going to arrest her, and then tells Meredith this isn't what the Order stands for and tells her to stand down. You can interpret the final scenes of Cullen bowing or letting Hawke go as him somewhere along the way issuing an official override of that command to the templars, but we don't see it on camera. By the same line of argument, there could have been a rescinding of the Right of Annulment as well. Thing is, we don't know either way, so the argument is pretty thin. Just not mentioning surviving mages in the very limited epilogue is hardly proof.

Maybe, but I tend to be of the belief that if we don't see it then it didn't happen.  Given we never see Cullen actually resind the right, nor do we EVER hear of any mages surviving if Hawke sides with the Templars (no matter what is done in the gallows itself), I go with the default lore.  All the mages were indeed killed (or maybe tranquilized per DG).

-Polaris

[BlueMagitek]

Isn't this topic supposed to be about the increased point of view from the Templar rather than whatever else is going on in the topic atm?

[In Exile]

R2s Muse wrote...

I'm curious about this very clear case of Cullen rescinding the order to arrest Hawke?? He questions Meredith about how they were going to arrest her, and then tells Meredith this isn't what the Order stands for and tells her to stand down. You can interpret the final scenes of Cullen bowing or letting Hawke go as him somewhere along the way issuing an official override of that command to the templars, but we don't see it on camera. By the same line of argument, there could have been a rescinding of the Right of Annulment as well. Thing is, we don't know either way, so the argument is pretty thin. Just not mentioning surviving mages in the very limited epilogue is hardly proof.

I thought the "letting go" scene was a lot more about templars pissing themselves in fear after Hawke beatdown lightsaber Meredith, as a "no way, dude, not going for that" type of reaction. 

[Iakus]

IanPolaris wrote...

I'd also note that having a Right of Annulment be rescinded after the fact is not common (in fact I don't think it's ever happened regardless of the authority to do so). Certainly it's more uncommon then having the Templars mutiny against a Knight Commander (and mutiny happens in almost every military organization at some point and time).

That being so, if Cullen had rescinded the Right, Cassandra should have mentioned it and asked Varric why.

-Polaris

Given in 700 years it has only been invoked 17 times (as of DAO, at least) it's not like the RoA is a common event in any case.

[LolaLei]

In Exile wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
It's not my lore it's the lore of the game.  Once a circle has been declared irredeemable, no mages from that circle can be allowed to survive.  This is stated very plainly both in the game lore and various conversations.

Too bad, you can't accept that.

-Polaris

Ian is completely right on this point. I recall the thread where DG said that a mage who surrenders is made tranquil. I'm not sure if that doesn't mean "allowed to survive" (from the Chantry POV, at least), but it's a very different fate that execution.

From I recall in that thread, it also applied to the children. 

That's true, although it didn't sound to me like Cullen planned to turn those three mages that he tried to save (in the templar ending) tranquil, since he says "perhaps if we watch them closely", if he had intend to make them tranquil then he wouldn't need to watch them closely, he could just cut them from the Fade and save himself a job.

[LolaLei]

IanPolaris wrote...

R2s Muse wrote...

I'm curious about this very clear case of Cullen rescinding the order to arrest Hawke?? He questions Meredith about how they were going to arrest her, and then tells Meredith this isn't what the Order stands for and tells her to stand down. You can interpret the final scenes of Cullen bowing or letting Hawke go as him somewhere along the way issuing an official override of that command to the templars, but we don't see it on camera. By the same line of argument, there could have been a rescinding of the Right of Annulment as well. Thing is, we don't know either way, so the argument is pretty thin. Just not mentioning surviving mages in the very limited epilogue is hardly proof.

Maybe, but I tend to be of the belief that if we don't see it then it didn't happen.  Given we never see Cullen actually resind the right, nor do we EVER hear of any mages surviving if Hawke sides with the Templars (no matter what is done in the gallows itself), I go with the default lore.  All the mages were indeed killed (or maybe tranquilized per DG).

-Polaris

We never see Hawke meet or have any dealings with Lady Elegant prior to that one scene at the beginning of Act 1, but supposedly they knew each other well from his year working to keep his family in Kirkwall. Does that mean none of that happened either? 

Modifié par LolaLei, 16 juin 2013 - 05:18 .