1081 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

LolaLei wrote...
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.

I thought "watch them closely" was a "what do we do until we can make them tranquil?" sort of remark. Cullen was remarkly pro-tranquility, and if you ask him about the Tranquil solution, he's pretty much "not a bad idea" about it.

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...

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  If Cullen wanted to keep those mages alive (or for that matter any captured mages alive) he could have rescinded the Right of Annulment the moment he removed Meredith from authority.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

This is a much better argument . Thank you. A strong one too.

In his defence, the game ends before he can utter his very first command so we have no way of knowing whether he did order the Rite rescinded or not. It's a bit of a mouthful to do so in the very same sentence as removing Meredith from command (and if she isn't, then the order would be moot regardless).

As for the ending not mentioning any mages surviving, this is true. We don't. It also does not say the opposite mind. But it's not really relevant. It's not there to answer questions in detail, it's there to close up the story. A 11/12 mages died wouldn't really add anything. The game narrative does not exist to provide us with arguments to our respective positions in these discussions after all .

Given that throughout the game we see Cullen keeping his word and acting reasonably when prompted: He gives Keran a chance if you ask him to. He spares the conspirators involved in the rebellion. I'm inclined to believe he'd let the mages go.
This is an opinion based on previous dealings with the man. This is not fact, merely how I interpret his character. Feel free to disagree.

---

Instead, I'd like to reassert the question I raised last page:

What kind of scenario's that we'd like to see the templars in?
In DAO, we saw them as the sentinels and acting as security primarily. While adressing both their human and their oppressive sides a bit. In DA2 we saw them in capacity of power and jailors, with emphasis on abuse of authority and the problems with the idea of an armed group being "neutral".

Personally, I'd like to see their addiction explored most of all. How it works, what kind of toll it puts on them and what they themselves think of it. We also have seen them precious little in their capacity of hunters. Something I imagine the current situation they're in would lend itself well towards. Them looking for a new role now that the circles are no more and trying to come to terms with severing themselves from the Chantry is also an interesting approach.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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. 

And blood mages in the Circle and abominations on the streets are NOT an excuse?

A handful of blood mages and abominations aren't an excuse to kill hundreds of people, especially for an act that they weren't responsible for.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Again, you seem to look at this only trough the prism of Anderses actions. Many could argue that the Cirlce was rife for a RoA before Anders. 

The only justification that Meredith continually gives for the Right of Annulment is appeasement to a proverbial angry mob that will demand the death of the mages because of Anders' actions - that's the only reason that the Knight-Commander proves for the death of all the mages.

[R2s Muse]

LolaLei wrote...

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.

Indeed, in that scene Cullen talks about how at Kinloch Hold many mages were saved and maybe we could do the same here.

"The situation was much more dire in Ferelden’s Circle, and yet many mages were saved. We could still do as much here." [Notably seen in-game, BTW]

What would really clear this is up is not arguments about things that may or may not happen off-screen (including "dubious" omissions in the epilogue) but how Kirkwall is talked about in Asunder and in WoT. In Asunder they are often rather vague about what happened (*ahem*) "a year ago" in Kirkwall with that mage Anders.  In WoT, notably, all it says at 9:37 in the timeline is that the mages and templars clashed. Again, leaving it slightly ambiguous.

"Hawke leads the push to stop the mages and templars asd they clash in Kirkwall. The city's First Enchanter Orsino and Knight-Commander Meredith are both killed." (p. 156)

Modifié par R2s Muse, 16 juin 2013 - 05:26 .

[LolaLei]

In Exile wrote...

LolaLei wrote...
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.

I thought "watch them closely" was a "what do we do until we can make them tranquil?" sort of remark. Cullen was remarkly pro-tranquility, and if you ask him about the Tranquil solution, he's pretty much "not a bad idea" about it.

The thing about Cullen is the guy can't seem to make his bloody mind up. Is that due to time constraints with the writing? Or is it part of his character/personality to change his mind often? Some would argue that his thoughts on the matter changed as his PTSD improved, others would say he's purposely deceptive to save his own arse.

Perhaps it's just open to interpretation. To be honest, I don't think we'll know for sure what the deal is with him until we see in him DAI (if he has a decent sized role).

[R2s Muse]

In Exile wrote...

LolaLei wrote...
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.

I thought "watch them closely" was a "what do we do until we can make them tranquil?" sort of remark. Cullen was remarkly pro-tranquility, and if you ask him about the Tranquil solution, he's pretty much "not a bad idea" about it.

What's funny is he makes a marked point of not telling you what he thinks personally in that conversation. He's very PR man, with lots of  "they say"s. But sure, he does seem puzzled that mages think tranquility is worse than death.

Modifié par R2s Muse, 16 juin 2013 - 05:33 .

[In Exile]

LolaLei wrote...
The thing about Cullen is the guy can't seem to make his bloody mind up. Is that due to time constraints with the writing? Or is it part of his character/personality to change his mind often? Some would argue that his thoughts on the matter changed as his PTSD improved, others would say he's purposely deceptive to save his own arse.

Well, I don't think Cullen is all there since the Tower, and not just in terms of his PTSD. What seems to have mellowed out to me his is unyielding bloodlust. If you look at him in DA:O, he basically wants to cull the entire Tower, or at the very least have the lot of them sent off to Aeonar. 

[Iakus]

LolaLei wrote...


The thing about Cullen is the guy can't seem to make his bloody mind up. Is that due to time constraints with the writing? Or is it part of his character/personality to change his mind often? Some would argue that his thoughts on the matter changed as his PTSD improved, others would say he's purposely deceptive to save his own arse.

Perhaps it's just open to interpretation. To be honest, I don't think we'll know for sure what the deal is with him until we see in him DAI (if he has a decent sized role).

I think it's because Cullen started out a pretty friendly templar in DAO, but was badly traumatized by his experiences in Broken Circle as Uldred's prisoner.  He never really got over it and now sees potential monsters in all mages, even though he's fundamentally a decent man.  He's very much conflicted.

[LolaLei]

In Exile wrote...

LolaLei wrote...
The thing about Cullen is the guy can't seem to make his bloody mind up. Is that due to time constraints with the writing? Or is it part of his character/personality to change his mind often? Some would argue that his thoughts on the matter changed as his PTSD improved, others would say he's purposely deceptive to save his own arse.

Well, I don't think Cullen is all there since the Tower, and not just in terms of his PTSD. What seems to have mellowed out to me his is unyielding bloodlust. If you look at him in DA:O, he basically wants to cull the entire Tower, or at the very least have the lot of them sent off to Aeonar. 

I don't think anyone can ever fully recover from something like that, so I find it completely understandable. I'm amazed that they didn't end up having him completely barking mad.

[LolaLei]

iakus wrote...

LolaLei wrote...


The thing about Cullen is the guy can't seem to make his bloody mind up. Is that due to time constraints with the writing? Or is it part of his character/personality to change his mind often? Some would argue that his thoughts on the matter changed as his PTSD improved, others would say he's purposely deceptive to save his own arse.

Perhaps it's just open to interpretation. To be honest, I don't think we'll know for sure what the deal is with him until we see in him DAI (if he has a decent sized role).

I think it's because Cullen started out a pretty friendly templar in DAO, but was badly traumatized by his experiences in Broken Circle as Uldred's prisoner.  He never really got over it and now sees potential monsters in all mages, even though he's fundamentally a decent man.  He's very much conflicted.

That's what I like to believe, of course I like to try and see it from all sides though.

[Xilizhra]

iakus wrote...

LolaLei wrote...


The thing about Cullen is the guy can't seem to make his bloody mind up. Is that due to time constraints with the writing? Or is it part of his character/personality to change his mind often? Some would argue that his thoughts on the matter changed as his PTSD improved, others would say he's purposely deceptive to save his own arse.

Perhaps it's just open to interpretation. To be honest, I don't think we'll know for sure what the deal is with him until we see in him DAI (if he has a decent sized role).

I think it's because Cullen started out a pretty friendly templar in DAO, but was badly traumatized by his experiences in Broken Circle as Uldred's prisoner.  He never really got over it and now sees potential monsters in all mages, even though he's fundamentally a decent man.  He's very much conflicted.

I... don't really agree. He's not a decent person at all throughout the entirety of DA2. Would he be again later on? It might be the case, but it's not what we see in that game.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
I... don't really agree. He's not a decent person at all throughout the entirety of DA2. Would he be again later on? It might be the case, but it's not what we see in that game.

I'm not sure he was a decent guy in DA:O. I found him creepy to the MAX when it came to my female elf mage. He was two steps removed from just outright telling her he was smelling her hair while she slept. 

[Xilizhra]

In Exile wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
I... don't really agree. He's not a decent person at all throughout the entirety of DA2. Would he be again later on? It might be the case, but it's not what we see in that game.

I'm not sure he was a decent guy in DA:O. I found him creepy to the MAX when it came to my female elf mage. He was two steps removed from just outright telling her he was smelling her hair while she slept. 

Eh, I don't think he was stalker material, just shy. And duty-bound.

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

I... don't really agree. He's not a decent person at all throughout the entirety of DA2. Would he be again later on? It might be the case, but it's not what we see in that game.

Perhaps "damaged" is a better description.  Before Uldred, he used to be a far nicer person regarding mages.  Now he simply can't make himself trust them.  But there still seems to be a fundamental goodness in him.

@In Exile:  I can't comment on that, as my elf mage was male 

Modifié par iakus, 16 juin 2013 - 06:00 .

[Xilizhra]

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I... don't really agree. He's not a decent person at all throughout the entirety of DA2. Would he be again later on? It might be the case, but it's not what we see in that game.

Perhaps "damaged" is a better description.  Before Uldred, he used to be a far nicer person regarding mages.  Now he simply can't make himself trust them.  But there still seems to be a fundamental goodness in him.

@In Exile:  I can't comment on that, as my elf mage was male 

He has the potential to be good, but it's as yet unrealized, so far as I can see.

[Sir JK]

Xilizhra wrote...

He has the potential to be good, but it's as yet unrealized, so far as I can see.

This I largely agree with.

[LobselVith8]

Lathrim wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually under Chantry law they do.  When a right has been declared, that circle is considered irreemable, and that means that no possible 'corruption' is to be allowed to continue....down to the last child.

-Polaris

Not all Templars obey said law blindly, I'd wager. Just as it hasn't been said that Cullen did, in fact, fulfill the Right of Annulment after Meredith was killed. If you headcanon'd that he did, that is fine, but don't expect others to see it as an irrefutable statement - because it isn't.

Varric only mentions "survivors" if the Champion specifically protected the mages from Meredith and her templars. I don't see why anyone thinks that Cullen would spare them when he was only willing to intervene for three mages - out of hundreds of mages who are being slaughtered for something they didn't do.

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Varric only mentions "survivors" if the Champion specifically protected the mages from Meredith and her templars. I don't see why anyone thinks that Cullen would spare them when he was only willing to intervene for three mages - out of hundreds of mages who are being slaughtered for something they didn't do.

Because he says so and has never been shown going back on his word?

[Lotion Soronarr]

BlueMagitek wrote...

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?

Pro-mage fanatics de-railing the thread... What did you expect.

[Sir JK]

Let's be fair Lotion... I helped.

But let's try to get it back on track again:

What kind of scenario's that we'd like to see the templars in?
In DAO, we saw them as the sentinels and acting as security primarily. While adressing both their human and their oppressive sides a bit. In DA2 we saw them in capacity of power and jailors, with emphasis on abuse of authority and the problems with the idea of an armed group being "neutral".

Personally, I'd like to see their addiction explored most of all. How it works, what kind of toll it puts on them and what they themselves think of it. We also have seen them precious little in their capacity of hunters. Something I imagine the current situation they're in would lend itself well towards. Them looking for a new role now that the circles are no more and trying to come to terms with severing themselves from the Chantry is also an interesting approach.

[Xilizhra]

What kind of scenario's that we'd like to see the templars in?

What are they but genocidal marauders by this point?

[LolaLei]

Xilizhra wrote...

What kind of scenario's that we'd like to see the templars in?

What are they but genocidal marauders by this point?

Lol, they certainly weren't portrayed in a flattering light in the Asunder novel. I'm inclined to believe the same.

[LobselVith8]

Sir JK wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Varric only mentions "survivors" if the Champion specifically protected the mages from Meredith and her templars. I don't see why anyone thinks that Cullen would spare them when he was only willing to intervene for three mages - out of hundreds of mages who are being slaughtered for something they didn't do.

Because he says so and has never been shown going back on his word?

Which seems to be the point in why Varric addresses the stark difference between actually saving mages, and actually killing them. I see no reason to whitewash the reality of participating in the mass execution of mages for something they didn't do.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And blood mages in the Circle and abominations on the streets are NOT an excuse?

A handful of blood mages and abominations aren't an excuse to kill hundreds of people, especially for an act that they weren't responsible for.

More than an a handfull.
And yes, if the Circle is deemed corrupted then it IS a reason to kill hunderds.

Anders blowing up the Chantry is completely irrelevant to the Circles corruption - not to mention that the templars have no reason whatsoever to believe Anders was acting alone.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Again, you seem to look at this only trough the prism of Anderses actions. Many could argue that the Cirlce was rife for a RoA before Anders. 

The only justification that Meredith continually gives for the Right of Annulment is appeasement to a proverbial angry mob that will demand the death of the mages because of Anders' actions - that's the only reason that the Knight-Commander proves for the death of all the mages.

I don't care if that is the only justification she gives to Hawke. She called for the RoA before that, so it's clear she ALREADY thought the Circle was corrupt.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

A handful of blood mages and abominations aren't an excuse to kill hundreds of people, especially for an act that they weren't responsible for.

More than an a handfull.
And yes, if the Circle is deemed corrupted then it IS a reason to kill hunderds.

Anders blowing up the Chantry is completely irrelevant to the Circles corruption - not to mention that the templars have no reason whatsoever to believe Anders was acting alone.

Anders' destruction of the Kirkwall Chantry is the reasoning behind Meredith's singular argument: that the people will demand blood. That makes it relevent to her Right of Annulment. And Meredith never once says (or implies) that she doubts Anders' confession about working alone.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The only justification that Meredith continually gives for the Right of Annulment is appeasement to a proverbial angry mob that will demand the death of the mages because of Anders' actions - that's the only reason that the Knight-Commander proves for the death of all the mages. 

I don't care if that is the only justification she gives to Hawke. She called for the RoA before that, so it's clear she ALREADY thought the Circle was corrupt. 

Meredith also speaks to her lyrium sword; she's not capable of judging the Circle of Kirkwall, especially when she thinks her own templars are under the influence of blood magic for thinking she's gone insane.