538 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Xilizhra wrote...

And yeah her mob justification isn't reasonable that does not mean however that a Hawke that sides with her has to share said justification or that siding with her is wrong on principle. That's where you lose me with the "how can you side with her?" My Hawke sides with her to minimize the damage and stop any bloodmages from wrecking havoc in the chaos.

Minimize the damage through mass slaughter? How counterintuitive.

*yawns*

I've already debated the mage ending as much as I ever will with you Xili.

[draken-heart]

As I have said multiple times: Right/Wrong, Good/Evil, Innocence/Guilt are just imaginary constructs that have no purpose except to blind people from logic. You have no clue who is a blood mage, so deeming the whole Circle irredeemable at this point is the only option, especially when you were antagonized and blocked from doing your duty the whole time you have been in charge.

Modifié par draken-heart, 19 novembre 2013 - 07:48 .

[Sc2mashimaro]

Each choice seems straight-forward enough if you look at it through the context of safety versus freedom. No matter which side you take - in the game - a lot of people are going to be killed. If you take Meredith's side, you believe in revoking the rights of the mages in the name of safety. You are basically accepting that some freedoms must be given up to ensure the safety of the many. If you stand against Meredith, you are saying that, even though some of these mages are almost certainly bad people, it is not acceptable to take their freedoms away to ensure the safety of everyone else. The finale is merely this concept taken in extremis. Does the safety of the many outweigh the lives of a few or does the freedom of a few outweigh the safety of the many (and the lives of a few).

Personally, I would always stand against Meredith. However, I can see why some would take her side both in the context of role-playing and in real life.

[draken-heart]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

Each choice seems straight-forward enough if you look at it through the context of safety versus freedom. No matter which side you take - in the game - a lot of people are going to be killed. If you take Meredith's side, you believe in revoking the rights of the mages in the name of safety. You are basically accepting that some freedoms must be given up to ensure the safety of the many. If you stand against Meredith, you are saying that, even though some of these mages are almost certainly bad people, it is not acceptable to take their freedoms away to ensure the safety of everyone else. The finale is merely this concept taken in extremis. Does the safety of the many outweigh the lives of a few or does the freedom of a few outweigh the safety of the many (and the lives of a few).

Personally, I would always stand against Meredith. However, I can see why some would take her side both in the context of role-playing and in real life.

I just  choose based on class and story design.

Rogue/Warrior Hawke w/Bethany in the Circle: likely mage for no real reason
Rogue/Warrior Hawke w/Bethany as a Warden: Templars as I would have no reason to care about the mages in the Circle like I would with Bethany in the Circle.
Mage Hawke: Mages either way.

[Sc2mashimaro]

draken-heart wrote...

I just  choose based on class and story design.

Rogue/Warrior Hawke w/Bethany in the Circle: likely mage for no real reason
Rogue/Warrior Hawke w/Bethany as a Warden: Templars as I would have no reason to care about the mages in the Circle like I would with Bethany in the Circle.
Mage Hawke: Mages either way.

I think that works too. Many people are more swayed by loyalty than principle, so this kind of role-playing makes sense. Some might side with the Templars too, knowing that they are likely to win, based on the thought that "if I fight with them now, I live to fight another day and maybe change things down the road" - also perfectly acceptable if the player is not meta-gaming their role-playing.

[Theblackhand]

I played as a mage hawke and sided with the Templars. At first it was just for the achievement and it actually felt bad to be slaughtering mages, some of whose only crime was being born with magic. Then I went back and redid it siding with the mages. It felt empty, more of your companions are against it. It felt like more of Kirkwall was against you. Killing Templars who are fighting abominations in the streets. Even fighting mages who turned to blood magic, in the end who are you saving? Orsino turns to blood magic, even if you curb stomp all Templars who try to push forward, slaughtering a lot of the circle you are trying to save.

It feels like you do save more lives siding against the circle than with it. Thinking about it, at most Hawke personally kills only 10 or so mages who are only listed as "circle mage". The rest are summoning demons or turning to blood magic. The amount of Templars you slaughter is a lot greater. Just killing Templars who are attacking other abominations. Are the Templars you kill worth sacrificing to save a few?

The rite of annulment was a bad call, there is even some resistance from the Templar side against it and they follow your commands to spare a few of the mages who surrendered.

Though I find it a little unfair on Hawke. You could spend the entire game trying to save as many mages as possible from the circle in Kirkwall but you side with the Templars against the circle and suddenly you are a symbol of oppression. Someone who embodies all that is wrong with the circle system. I just hope that if Hawke returns in DA:I he won't be a massive mage hater who shows no remorse at the deaths of some innocent mages.

[Vixy]

I helped the mages with my 2h female warrior Delphine Hawke until her romance, Anders, used her as a distraction to blow up the chantry. Bethany was a circle mage and also apparently the only good, uncorrupted, non-blood mage in freaking Kirkwall (which is why I spared/saved her in the end). Something about Kirkwall makes mages go loony (and yes, Meredith had a lot to do with it, but I think Corypheus had more to do with it in the end).

[draken-heart]

Vixy wrote...

I helped the mages with my 2h female warrior Delphine Hawke until her romance, Anders, used her as a distraction to blow up the chantry. Bethany was a circle mage and also apparently the only good, uncorrupted, non-blood mage in freaking Kirkwall (which is why I spared/saved her in the end). Something about Kirkwall makes mages go loony (and yes, Meredith had a lot to do with it, but I think Corypheus had more to do with it in the end).

It was the veil actually. Read the Enigma of Kirkwall codex Entry.

[Ieldra]

Theblackhand wrote...
Though I find it a little unfair on Hawke. You could spend the entire game trying to save as many mages as possible from the circle in Kirkwall but you side with the Templars against the circle and suddenly you are a symbol of oppression. Someone who embodies all that is wrong with the circle system. I just hope that if Hawke returns in DA:I he won't be a massive mage hater who shows no remorse at the deaths of some innocent mages.

Well, the Annulment is the epitome of injustice against mages, there is no question about that. I find it more plausible to side with the templars throughout the game, killing all those blood mages and sending the rest back to the Circle, but balk at indiscriminately killing all mages in the end. If you start pro-mage and end pro-Templar, the final choice is an odd time to switch. I'd rather expect a switch in that direction after "All That Remains" in Act 2.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 novembre 2013 - 12:53 .

[draken-heart]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Theblackhand wrote...
Though I find it a little unfair on Hawke. You could spend the entire game trying to save as many mages as possible from the circle in Kirkwall but you side with the Templars against the circle and suddenly you are a symbol of oppression. Someone who embodies all that is wrong with the circle system. I just hope that if Hawke returns in DA:I he won't be a massive mage hater who shows no remorse at the deaths of some innocent mages.

Well, the Annulment is the epitome of injustice against mages, there is no question about that. I find it more plausible to side with the templars throughout the game, killing all those blood mages and sending the rest back to the Circle, but balk at indiscriminately killing all mages in the end. If you start pro-mage and end pro-Templar, the final choice is an odd time to switch. I'd rather expect a switch in that direction after "All That Remains" in Act 2.

Then it is the epitome of injustice in all circles, even the ones that need it. Once again, I refer you to the Enigma of Kirkwall codex entry for evidence as to why there should not even be a circle in Kirkwall.

Once more, GOOD/EVIL, RIGHT/WRONG, INNOCENCE/GUILT are just imginary constructs people use to justify their actions. Nothing can be justified, even siding with the mages.

Modifié par draken-heart, 22 novembre 2013 - 07:12 .

[Sc2mashimaro]

draken-heart wrote...
Once more, GOOD/EVIL, RIGHT/WRONG, INNOCENCE/GUILT are just imginary constructs people use to justify their actions. Nothing can be justified, even siding with the mages.

I would strongly disagree that good/evil, right/wrong, are merely imaginary. That's a nihilistic or, at least, very existentialist take on morality. There are couple reference points for a solid definition of good/evil. Natural Law is one place to start, Utilitarianism another, others prefer Kantian. There are certainly many other places to start too. Additionally, many will differentiate between what an ethical government looks like and an ethical individual - some will also differentiate between those and what an ethical company/merchant/corporation looks like.

The overlap between these schools of thought is wider than the areas of, albiet strong disagreement between them. To me - and to many others, this suggests that morality is more than a mere construct, but rather a real value that we struggle to define and understand.

(Skipped guilt/innocence because that is clearly factual: either a person did the thing they are accused of doing or they did not. Whether they should be judged for doing that action is a seperate issue - goverened by your understanding of good/evil, right/wrong)

[draken-heart]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

draken-heart wrote...
Once more, GOOD/EVIL, RIGHT/WRONG, INNOCENCE/GUILT are just imginary constructs people use to justify their actions. Nothing can be justified, even siding with the mages.

I would strongly disagree that good/evil, right/wrong, are merely imaginary. That's a nihilistic or, at least, very existentialist take on morality. There are couple reference points for a solid definition of good/evil. Natural Law is one place to start, Utilitarianism another, others prefer Kantian. There are certainly many other places to start too. Additionally, many will differentiate between what an ethical government looks like and an ethical individual - some will also differentiate between those and what an ethical company/merchant/corporation looks like.

The overlap between these schools of thought is wider than the areas of, albiet strong disagreement between them. To me - and to many others, this suggests that morality is more than a mere construct, but rather a real value that we struggle to define and understand.

(Skipped guilt/innocence because that is clearly factual: either a person did the thing they are accused of doing or they did not. Whether they should be judged for doing that action is a seperate issue - goverened by your understanding of good/evil, right/wrong)

what one person sees as good or right, another will see as wrong/evil. Is it good to risk the mages of the Circle becoming abominations just because they are "innocent" in the chantry going boom?

[Hazegurl]

draken-heart wrote...

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

draken-heart wrote...
Once more, GOOD/EVIL, RIGHT/WRONG, INNOCENCE/GUILT are just imginary constructs people use to justify their actions. Nothing can be justified, even siding with the mages.

I would strongly disagree that good/evil, right/wrong, are merely imaginary. That's a nihilistic or, at least, very existentialist take on morality. There are couple reference points for a solid definition of good/evil. Natural Law is one place to start, Utilitarianism another, others prefer Kantian. There are certainly many other places to start too. Additionally, many will differentiate between what an ethical government looks like and an ethical individual - some will also differentiate between those and what an ethical company/merchant/corporation looks like.

The overlap between these schools of thought is wider than the areas of, albiet strong disagreement between them. To me - and to many others, this suggests that morality is more than a mere construct, but rather a real value that we struggle to define and understand.

(Skipped guilt/innocence because that is clearly factual: either a person did the thing they are accused of doing or they did not. Whether they should be judged for doing that action is a seperate issue - goverened by your understanding of good/evil, right/wrong)

what one person sees as good or right, another will see as wrong/evil. Is it good to risk the mages of the Circle becoming abominations just because they are "innocent" in the chantry going boom?

I agree, there is no ultimate good or evil thing because it varies from person to person. You can argue till your blue in the face but if a person believes their choice is just then there I s nothing you can say to prove otherwise, except for give your opinion on the matter. 

A person can just as well use the torn veil as a reason to kill all the mages. Kill them  due to the high risk they have of becoming abominations and close down the circle in Kirkwall permanently. it's not my reason for siding with the Templars but I can see the torn Veil argument going either way.

[draken-heart]

Hazegurl wrote...
I agree, there is no ultimate good or evil thing because it varies from person to person. You can argue till your blue in the face but if a person believes their choice is just then there I s nothing you can say to prove otherwise, except for give your opinion on the matter. 

A person can just as well use the torn veil as a reason to kill all the mages. Kill them  due to the high risk they have of becoming abominations and close down the circle in Kirkwall permanently. it's not my reason for siding with the Templars but I can see the torn Veil argument going either way.

How is it not a -10 points to the circle? That is the thing. The torn veil makes it hard/impossible to side with the mages without the constant doubt that you might have released monsters into the countryside to slaughter everything in sight.

[MisterJB]

How can anyone not side with Meredith at the end of DA2?
There are people shooting fireballs in the middle of the streets and Meredith wants to stop them.

[draken-heart]

MisterJB wrote...

How can anyone not side with Meredith at the end of DA2?
There are people shooting fireballs in the middle of the streets and Meredith wants to stop them.

Apparently Meredith is crazy, so mages are 1000% innocent defensive "non-combatants" that are simply trying not to get killed by a madwoman.

They did not blow up chantry=they do not deserve annulment, is every mage lover's reasons for ignoring all the evidence from the rest of the game.

[MisterJB]

Ideally, I wouldn't Annul the Circle. I'd send them all to the Gallows, place it under lockdown, take control over all boats so that the good people of Kirkwall did not attempt to do justice by their own hands and send Templars as well as guardsman to the streets in case tempers flared up.
Then, I'd conduct a minucious search of the Circle, discover that Orsino was a blood mage and had been teaching others, have them executed and place Bethany as First Enchanter.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen. So, the priority is stopping the people who are throwing fireballs in the streets.

[draken-heart]

MisterJB wrote...

Ideally, I wouldn't Annul the Circle. I'd send them all to the Gallows, place it under lockdown, take control over all boats so that the good people of Kirkwall did not attempt to do justice by their own hands and send Templars as well as guardsman to the streets in case tempers flared up.
Then, I'd conduct a minucious search of the Circle, discover that Orsino was a blood mage and had been teaching others, have them executed and place Bethany as First Enchanter.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen. So, the priority is stopping the people who are throwing fireballs in the streets.

Except that nobody else sees it that way. They see it as Genocide or save the people who could slaughter thousands of people by one bad deal.

[MisterJB]

Varric understood it. Annuling the Circle was about protecting the innocent people of Kirkwall and preserving their way of life. It had to be done.

[draken-heart]

MisterJB wrote...

Varric understood it. Annuling the Circle was about protecting the innocent people of Kirkwall and preserving their way of life. It had to be done.

people ignore Varric when it is convenient, but when he says mages survive in the ending, they treat him like an all-knowing god.

[MisterJB]

It is interesting how Varric considers helping the Circle to be "helping dangerous people run amok" while helping the Templars is "Protecting innocent people, preserving our way of life."
I knew I liked Varric for a reason. I hope he mantains this outlook in DAI.

Modifié par MisterJB, 23 novembre 2013 - 11:48 .

[Sc2mashimaro]

draken-heart wrote...


what one person sees as good or right, another will see as wrong/evil. Is it good to risk the mages of the Circle becoming abominations just because they are "innocent" in the chantry going boom?

Maybe we are arguing past each other - you obviously believe there is some form of right or wrong here. Otherwise, there would be no interest in the answer: one of the answers must have a higher value than the other even if it is subjective.

And that's just the quandry, isn't it? Safety vs. Freedom. No, the Circle of Magi is clearly not guilty of destroying the Chantry, it is a convenient excuse to execute the right of annulment. It is also clear that many mages in the circle and outside of it are bad people who desire to harm others and are capable of it. It is also clear that not every mage is bad or desiring to harm others and abuse their powers.

Meredith has been oppressive, but it is also possible that she is right - both her and Anders believe that Mages and Non-Mages are already at war and the peace between them is a charade. Anders is basically a terrorist and an example of everything Meredith is trying to prevent, and Meredith is a tyrant, an example of everything Anders wants to end.

Meredith and Anders are examples of each side's evils in their most extreme form and the game asks you to choose. It is a contemporary question: Do you choose freedom, even though it may make us less safe from people like Anders? Or do you choose safety, even though you may find yourself subject to tyrants like Meredith?

[Sc2mashimaro]

draken-heart wrote...

Except that nobody else sees it that way. They see it as Genocide or save the people who could slaughter thousands of people by one bad deal.

It is obviously not genocide. It is the first shots fired in a war - presumably the war that DA:I will be covering.

And, in the first engagement, Hawke either sides with the Mages, helping many survive and inciting revolution in the Circles around the world OR Hawke sides with the Templars and, in his attempt to help keep the peace and end the threat posed by certain mages in the Kirkwall circle, becomes a symbol of Mage oppression and part of the motivation for the revolution that takes place in Circles around the world.

But - again - it's not a genocide, it is clearly the first shots fired in the war.

[draken-heart]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Except that nobody else sees it that way. They see it as Genocide or save the people who could slaughter thousands of people by one bad deal.

It is obviously not genocide. It is the first shots fired in a war - presumably the war that DA:I will be covering.

And, in the first engagement, Hawke either sides with the Mages, helping many survive and inciting revolution in the Circles around the world OR Hawke sides with the Templars and, in his attempt to help keep the peace and end the threat posed by certain mages in the Kirkwall circle, becomes a symbol of Mage oppression and part of the motivation for the revolution that takes place in Circles around the world.

But - again - it's not a genocide, it is clearly the first shots fired in the war.

Except it is the genocide of the Kirkwall mages. someone said that the devs said no mages survived in the Templar ending.

[Sc2mashimaro]

draken-heart wrote...

Except it is the genocide of the Kirkwall mages. someone said that the devs said no mages survived in the Templar ending.

Just because no mages survive doesn't make it genocide. People play awfully fast and loose with that word. It would probably be considered a massacre though. It bears a lot more similarity - at least in my mind - to events like the My Lai Massacre:

(from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia....My_Lai_Massacre)

On the eve of the attack, at the Charlie Company briefing, Captain Ernest Medina told his men that nearly all the civilian residents of the hamlets in Sơn Mỹ village would have left for the market by 7 a.m., and any who remained would be NLF or NLF sympathizers.[21] He was asked whether the order included the killing of women and children. Those present later gave different accounts of Medina's response. Some, including platoon leaders, testified that the orders as they understood them were to kill all guerrilla and North Vietnamese combatants and "suspects" (including women and children, as well as all animals), to burn the village, and pollute the wells.[22] He was also quoted as saying, "They're all V.C., now go and get them", and was heard to reply to the question "Who is my enemy?" by saying, "Anybody that was running from us, hiding from us, or appeared to be the enemy. If a man was running, shoot him, sometimes even if a woman with a rifle was running, shoot her."[23]:310 At Cally's trial one defense witness testified that he remembered Medina instructing to destroy everything in the village that was "walking, crawling or growing".[24]