935 réponses à ce sujet

[Chanda]

Silfren wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Yeah, well that might work if it weren't for the fact that Cullen flat out declares that mages CANNOT be seen as people.  Just sayin'.  People keep holding him up as this paragon of moderation and reason, and he just isn't.  That he's not as bad as Meredith or Alrik does not erase the fact that he made his position on mages VERY clear,
and it wasn't all sunshine and roses.

So? Can you demonstrate a way in which Cullen's feelings towards mages; never mind that his feelings are that mages are not people like non-mages which is absolutely true; negativelly impacted the way in which he conducted himself?
Did he not behave in a reasonable matter?

What Cullen says is that you can't think of mages as people.  Maybe you find it a harmless statement, but for those of us living in the real world, it's another way of saying that mages lack personhood, that they are subhuman.

I don't think that Cullen's a stellar example of a templar in the way he conducts himself, no.  I already mentioned a few things--thinking of mages as not being people, his opinion that mages just need to be "re-educated" (again, creepy on SO many levels).  If what you're asking for is for me to find examples of Cullen behaving like Alrik or another corrupt Templar, that's too bad.  I'm aware that Cullen isn't evil like one of those men.  But being better than them doesn't make him good.  I don't have to have concrete examples of Cullen doing horrific things to consider that his general behavior is something less than reasonable.  I only have to point out that he has completely forgotten that his job isn't just about imprisoning mages lest they hurt someone, but that he's also required to protect mages themselves.  You can't do that if you actually believe that mages aren't people.

I think, if Cullen is our Templar companion, we're going to see a completely different side to him. I'm going to use what  you said about his statements as a mirrored example to the real world:

"Mages aren't people like you and me", and "Mages just need to be re-educated". I'm reminded of what some very conservative people have said about gays, because they are taught to be that way by their (usually) religious institution. "Homosexuals aren't people like you and me." "Homosexuals just need to be re-educated." Sometimes, something happens to these people, they have an experience where they get to know gays, or whatever, and they find that their own mind opens up about them. Their perspective changes due to their experiences. Either for better, or for worse.

I think Cullen is in this same boat. He's seen and experienced the bad mage side, in Origins, and he brought that with him to Kirkwall. He's spouting off what he's been taught, and what has also been reinforced by his experience. But now, he's also seen some of the good mages, and he's seen the bad side of the Templars, with Meredith and corruption within the Templar ranks. The question is, how are his experiences going to affect him now?

[Adela]

Silfren wrote...

ag99 wrote...

Silfren wrote...


So at the end...you see him recognizing that his Knight Commander has gone crazy, but there's nothing to indicate that he is suddenly moderate toward mages, or even any reason why he would have started being moderate toward them. 

Really now? How about when he spares those 3 mages?

I wondered if someone was going to bring this up like it somehow invalidated my point and totally explained
everything.  Sorry, but it doesn't.  It's still an out-of-left-field thing for Cullen to do because we've not been shown anything about his character that would explain why he would depart from his previous stance on mages.  My point is that we do not see any evolution in his character--for him to suddenly behave this way is inconsistent.

The Right of Annulment is an all-or-nothing deal.  The very point of it is that the Circle has been declared utterly irredeemable and must be wiped out entirely, down to the last man, woman, and child.  If Cullen agreed to the Annulment in the first place, why would he suddenly balk at carrying it out?  I'd expect a man who willingly spared mages to have put up a serious argument against killing them in the first place. 

Lol ok so I see you clearly dislike this character and your trying to find every little  flaw of his to make him a super bad guy, but hey guess what no one is perfect and every character in the game has their own flaws weather its a templar or a mage or and elf or a dwarf.

For example I dislike  Tallis and Anders but  I don't go in threads  to share my hatread of that specific character and nitpick his/hers every flaw, however if they were to be companions in DAI fine I'm cool with it as loong as they help me kill stuff thats pretty much all I care about, and I dont neceserally HAVE to interract with characters that I dont like

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
What Cullen says is that you can't think of mages as people.  Maybe you find it a harmless statement, but for those of us living in the real world, it's another way of saying that mages lack personhood, that they are subhuman.

I don't think that Cullen's a stellar example of a templar in the way he conducts himself, no.  I already mentioned a few things--thinking of mages as not being people, his opinion that mages just need to be "re-educated" (again, creepy on SO many levels).  If what you're asking for is for me to find examples of Cullen behaving like Alrik or another corrupt Templar, that's too bad.  I'm aware that Cullen isn't evil like one of those men.  But being better than them doesn't make him good.  I don't have to have concrete examples of Cullen doing horrific things to consider that his general behavior is something less than reasonable.  I only have to point out that he has completely forgotten that his job isn't just about imprisoning mages lest they hurt someone, but that he's also required to protect mages themselves.  You can't do that if you actually believe that mages aren't people.

If Cullen has not commited any abuses or broken any laws, then his detractors have no ground upon which they can question his work ethic, regardless of his opinions. The point was no whether he is a good person but whether he can be seen as a reasonable templar which he is due to his staunch commitment to protect normals while avoiding bringing suffering to mages unless strictly necessary.
And we have seen him intervene on the behalf of mages such as Alain despite the fact he was a blood mage. Therefore, even if Cullen didn't think mages are people; which is not what he said; he clearly fulfills ALL of his duties as a Templar. Certainly much better than the more usually lauded ones such as Evangeline who seems to have forgotten Templars are supposed to protect normals as well. Am I supposed to believe that she alone can keep every mage in Thedas from abusing magic? 

Also, here is what Cullen actually said "Mages cannot be treated like people. They are not like you and me."

What he says is not that mages are not people but that they can't be treated like others. Why? And he provides the answer. Because they are not like non-mages and what is the thing that differentiates them? Magic, of course.
Biology plays a part and always will in how people treat others. Women are granted a period of leave once their pregnancies reach a certain point while men don't because their biologies are simply different. And yet, this is considered to be perfectly acceptable in modern society, and for good reasons, despite them both being people.

Therefore, what Cullen is saying is that the special characteristics of the mages' bilogy warrant a different treatment. And this is quite reasonable given the fact mages can have a bad dream and become weapons of massive destruction.
Is it harsh and controversial? Certainly so. Is it false? Certainly not.

[Silfren]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Silfren wrote...
I wondered if someone was going to bring this up like it somehow invalidated my point and totally explained 
everything.  Sorry, but it doesn't.  It's still an out-of-left-field thing for Cullen to do because we've not been shown anything about his character that would explain why he would depart from his previous stance on mages.  My point is that we do not see any evolution in his character--for him to suddenly behave this way is inconsistent.

The Right of Annulment is an all-or-nothing deal.  The very point of it is that the Circle has been declared utterly irredeemable and must be wiped out entirely, down to the last man, woman, and child.  If Cullen agreed to the Annulment in the first place, why would he suddenly balk at carrying it out?  I'd expect a man who willingly spared mages to have put up a serious argument against killing them in the first place. 

Maybe because is now presented with evidence that the tower *isn't* irredeemable and is having second thoughts? Not to mention that Meredith's crazy behavior escalates throughout the Annulment.  Even her composure erodes to reveal the raw, ranty crazy beneath. 

I'm pretty sure that that's not how Annulment works. You commit to it, or not at all.

But anyway, again, WE DO NOT SEE ANY EVOLUTION IN CULLEN'S CHARACTER to explain why he is suddenly so moderate and reasonable.  This is what I'm arguing against.  I can believe that Cullen could change, but we do NOT SEE THIS in the game.  We see one Cullen in the beginning, and a different Cullen at the end, with no character evolution in between to explain it.  What's so hard about this?

[berelinde]

Chanda wrote...

Silfren wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Yeah, well that might work if it weren't for the fact that Cullen flat out declares that mages CANNOT be seen as people.  Just sayin'.  People keep holding him up as this paragon of moderation and reason, and he just isn't.  That he's not as bad as Meredith or Alrik does not erase the fact that he made his position on mages VERY clear,
and it wasn't all sunshine and roses.

So? Can you demonstrate a way in which Cullen's feelings towards mages; never mind that his feelings are that mages are not people like non-mages which is absolutely true; negativelly impacted the way in which he conducted himself?
Did he not behave in a reasonable matter?

What Cullen says is that you can't think of mages as people.  Maybe you find it a harmless statement, but for those of us living in the real world, it's another way of saying that mages lack personhood, that they are subhuman.

I don't think that Cullen's a stellar example of a templar in the way he conducts himself, no.  I already mentioned a few things--thinking of mages as not being people, his opinion that mages just need to be "re-educated" (again, creepy on SO many levels).  If what you're asking for is for me to find examples of Cullen behaving like Alrik or another corrupt Templar, that's too bad.  I'm aware that Cullen isn't evil like one of those men.  But being better than them doesn't make him good.  I don't have to have concrete examples of Cullen doing horrific things to consider that his general behavior is something less than reasonable.  I only have to point out that he has completely forgotten that his job isn't just about imprisoning mages lest they hurt someone, but that he's also required to protect mages themselves.  You can't do that if you actually believe that mages aren't people.

I think, if Cullen is our Templar companion, we're going to see a completely different side to him. I'm going to use what  you said about his statements as a mirrored example to the real world:

"Mages aren't people like you and me", and "Mages just need to be re-educated". I'm reminded of what some very conservative people have said about gays, because they are taught to be that way by their (usually) religious institution. "Homosexuals aren't people like you and me." "Homosexuals just need to be re-educated." Sometimes, something happens to these people, they have an experience where they get to know gays, or whatever, and they find that their own mind opens up about them. Their perspective changes due to their experiences. Either for better, or for worse.

I think Cullen is in this same boat. He's seen and experienced the bad mage side, in Origins, and he brought that with him to Kirkwall. He's spouting off what he's been taught, and what has also been reinforced by his experience. But now, he's also seen some of the good mages, and he's seen the bad side of the Templars, with Meredith and corruption within the Templar ranks. The question is, how are his experiences going to affect him now?

Good point, Chandra!

BioWare doesn't like to bring back the same characters unchanged. If Cullen has a major role in Inquisition, it's safe to say that he will have undergone more development.

I'm about as pro-mage as it gets, and even I'm willing to give him a chance.

[Iakus]

berelinde wrote...

Nope, he never said anything of the sort. It's speculation.

Cullen is a flawed individual (who isn't?), but he *learns* from his experiences. The trauma he suffered in Ferelden taught him to distrust mages. The abuses of his templar cohorts has taught him to distrust anyone who seeks power for its own sake, even templars. In defying Meredith, he says that he defended her against the likes of Thrask and Emeric because he believed that he was doing the Maker's work, but he now sees the error of his assumptions.

He isn't in it because he likes lording over mages. He's trying to fight the darkness.

Yes, thank you. 

Cullen is a fundamentally decent, scrupulous man who has repeatedly found himself in terrible situations that makes one question human nature.  That he has maintained any sort of moral compass at all is impressive.

Modifié par iakus, 20 septembre 2013 - 10:59 .

[LobselVith8]

ag99 wrote...

Silfren wrote...


So at the end...you see him recognizing that his Knight Commander has gone crazy, but there's nothing to indicate that he is suddenly moderate toward mages, or even any reason why he would have started being moderate toward them.

Really now? How about when he spares those 3 mages? 

Three mages, out of hundreds of men, women, and children. I don't think that makes Cullen a moderate (you are more than welcome to disagree), and I think it's easy to see why some people despise the character when he stops Meredith only when Hawke's life is specifically threatened.

[Regan Cousland]

Doesn't the fact that there's *this much* debate about Cullen's state of mind mean he'd make an interesting companion? lol

[Chanda]

Regan Cousland wrote...

Doesn't the fact that there's *this much* debate about Cullen's state of mind mean he'd make an interesting companion? lol

I'm not sure there's been another DA character that's been debated so much.

[Mr.House]

MasterScribe wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

What I mean is someone who currently views themselves as being a templar and/or upholding the templar ideal and was formally part of the order at some point.  Different templars are going to have different opinions of precisely what "being a templar" means given the chaos of the situation. 

"Templar ideal" is subjective, as well. I don't want a murderous lunatic in my group.

You did not finish DA2 did you?

I did actually. What are you getting at?

Anders was a murderous lunatic.

[Iakus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Three mages, out of hundreds of men, women, and children. I don't think that makes Cullen a moderate (you are more than welcome to disagree), and I think it's easy to see why some people despise the character when he stops Meredith only when Hawke's life is specifically threatened.

Given how many hundreds of mages and thousands of templars were supposed to be in Kirkwall, and how many we actually end up seeing, I don't think three is supposed to be a truly representative number of mages spared.

[Silfren]

ag99 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

ag99 wrote...

Silfren wrote...


So at the end...you see him recognizing that his Knight Commander has gone crazy, but there's nothing to indicate that he is suddenly moderate toward mages, or even any reason why he would have started being moderate toward them. 

Really now? How about when he spares those 3 mages?

I wondered if someone was going to bring this up like it somehow invalidated my point and totally explained
everything.  Sorry, but it doesn't.  It's still an out-of-left-field thing for Cullen to do because we've not been shown anything about his character that would explain why he would depart from his previous stance on mages.  My point is that we do not see any evolution in his character--for him to suddenly behave this way is inconsistent.

The Right of Annulment is an all-or-nothing deal.  The very point of it is that the Circle has been declared utterly irredeemable and must be wiped out entirely, down to the last man, woman, and child.  If Cullen agreed to the Annulment in the first place, why would he suddenly balk at carrying it out?  I'd expect a man who willingly spared mages to have put up a serious argument against killing them in the first place. 

Lol ok so I see you clearly dislike this character and your trying to find every little  flaw of his to make him a super bad guy, but hey guess what no one is perfect and every character in the game has their own flaws weather its a templar or a mage or and elf or a dwarf.

Yeah, uh, no.  I like Cullen just fine, he's one of my favorite characters.  I just think he was written very poorly at the end of DA2.   But sorry, the fact that I don't think he's a got a healthy view of mages or that I think he's not an example of what a templar should be does not mean I'm "trying to find every little flaw" or to make him "a super bad guy."   

I'm not sure you've even bothered paying attention to my posts about Cullen.  I've not once been hating on the character.  I've mentioned that he's not a moderate, and explained my reasons for thinking this.  From there I've complained about his poorly handled character arc.  It was never about me b*tching about how evil Cullen is, but about how his character development was lacking and didn't make sense to me.

You do realize that I can like a character while not thinking they're a good person, right?

Modifié par Silfren, 20 septembre 2013 - 11:19 .

[Nightwriter]

Mr.House wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

What I mean is someone who currently views themselves as being a templar and/or upholding the templar ideal and was formally part of the order at some point.  Different templars are going to have different opinions of precisely what "being a templar" means given the chaos of the situation. 

"Templar ideal" is subjective, as well. I don't want a murderous lunatic in my group.

You did not finish DA2 did you?

I did actually. What are you getting at?

Anders was a murderous lunatic.

Well, yes, okay, a little at the end, but up until then he was my buddy and we bedazzled each other's diaries together at our pajama party sleepovers.

[Xilizhra]

Yes, thank you.

Cullen is a fundamentally decent, scrupulous man who has repeatedly found himself in terrible situations that makes one question human nature. That he has maintained any sort of moral compass at all is impressive.

Cullen was decent at one point. Then he became a genocidal fiend. Whether that can be made up for is open to question.

Given how many hundreds of mages and thousands of templars were supposed
to be in Kirkwall, and how many we actually end up seeing, I don't
think three is supposed to be a truly representative number of mages
spared.

Pure, complete conjecture. The absolute most you could get out of this is having them be a proportional amount compared to the mages killed in game, making the ratio... 3:60 or however many enemies there were.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 20 septembre 2013 - 11:13 .

[LobselVith8]

MasterScribe wrote...

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

What I mean is someone who currently views themselves as being a templar and/or upholding the templar ideal and was formally part of the order at some point.  Different templars are going to have different opinions of precisely what "being a templar" means given the chaos of the situation. 

"Templar ideal" is subjective, as well. I don't want a murderous lunatic in my group. 

We may not have a choice due to mandatory companions being a feature of Inquisition.

[Silfren]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Silfren wrote...
I wondered if someone was going to bring this up like it somehow invalidated my point and totally explained 
everything.  Sorry, but it doesn't.  It's still an out-of-left-field thing for Cullen to do because we've not been shown anything about his character that would explain why he would depart from his previous stance on mages.  My point is that we do not see any evolution in his character--for him to suddenly behave this way is inconsistent.

The Right of Annulment is an all-or-nothing deal.  The very point of it is that the Circle has been declared utterly irredeemable and must be wiped out entirely, down to the last man, woman, and child.  If Cullen agreed to the Annulment in the first place, why would he suddenly balk at carrying it out?  I'd expect a man who willingly spared mages to have put up a serious argument against killing them in the first place. 

Maybe because is now presented with evidence that the tower *isn't* irredeemable and is having second thoughts? Not to mention that Meredith's crazy behavior escalates throughout the Annulment.  Even her composure erodes to reveal the raw, ranty crazy beneath. 

I'm pretty sure that that's not how Annulment works. You commit to it, or not at all.

But anyway, again, WE DO NOT SEE ANY EVOLUTION IN CULLEN'S CHARACTER to explain why he is suddenly so moderate and reasonable.  This is what I'm arguing against.  I can believe that Cullen could change, but we do NOT SEE THIS in the game.  We see one Cullen in the beginning, and a different Cullen at the end, with no character evolution in between to explain it.  What's so hard about this?

Because the Annulment is what causes him to undergo character evolution, much as Uldred's attack on the tower did before.  It's a huge "A-ha" moment.  I wouldn't expect to see him change before that. 

I'd still like to see some actual time given to that.  A scene or two of Cullen struggling.  People generally don't change like a switch gets flipped, and on the occasions when they do, we SEE that switch getting flipped.  This is what I'm asking for.  Some actual, visible character development, not just sudden changes in dialogue.

[Silfren]

Chanda wrote...

Regan Cousland wrote...

Doesn't the fact that there's *this much* debate about Cullen's state of mind mean he'd make an interesting companion? lol

I'm not sure there's been another DA character that's been debated so much.

Cullen WOULD make an interesting companion. Provided he was written well and not with the back-and-forth treatment he got before.  I'd actually like to see this just because I think it's the only real way we'd see an exploration into how his experiences in Origins and DA2 both shaped him.

[Mr.House]

Nightwriter wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

What I mean is someone who currently views themselves as being a templar and/or upholding the templar ideal and was formally part of the order at some point.  Different templars are going to have different opinions of precisely what "being a templar" means given the chaos of the situation. 

"Templar ideal" is subjective, as well. I don't want a murderous lunatic in my group.

You did not finish DA2 did you?

I did actually. What are you getting at?

Anders was a murderous lunatic.

Well, yes, okay, a little at the end, but up until then he was my buddy and we bedazzled each other's diaries together at our pajama party sleepovers.

He almost killed an innocent woman in act 2.