538 réponses à ce sujet

[draken-heart]

@Bardox9: I RP my Hawke as trying to protect Kirkwall, no matter what her family consisted of. Pro-Mage/Pro-Templar means nothing really.

[Silvershroud]

My very much good mage Hawke sided with Meredith the whole way. She didn't necessarily agree that annulment was the right thing to do, but she believed that the circle and templars are important to keep mages safe. And there is no denying the overabundance of evil blood mages in Kirkwall, which, as the champion, it was her duty to protect. She also guessed that Anders' murder of Elthina would be blamed on all mages, and hoped that if she (a mage) helped the templars, it would show that not all mages were untrustworthy. She sided with the templars because she thought it would actually help mages around Thedas.

[dragonflight288]

Count Silvershroud wrote...

My very much good mage Hawke sided with Meredith the whole way. She didn't necessarily agree that annulment was the right thing to do, but she believed that the circle and templars are important to keep mages safe. And there is no denying the overabundance of evil blood mages in Kirkwall, which, as the champion, it was her duty to protect. She also guessed that Anders' murder of Elthina would be blamed on all mages, and hoped that if she (a mage) helped the templars, it would show that not all mages were untrustworthy. She sided with the templars because she thought it would actually help mages around Thedas.

Kirkwall is used as an example to the other Circle's that it doesn't matter if they follow the rules, they can still be killed for something they didn't do. That rose tensions considerably and made the templars more willing to crack down and the mages more resistant to toeing the line.

It may not have been what your Hawke intended, but few political snowballs follow the path we want them to.

[Dean_the_Young]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Count Silvershroud wrote...

My very much good mage Hawke sided with Meredith the whole way. She didn't necessarily agree that annulment was the right thing to do, but she believed that the circle and templars are important to keep mages safe. And there is no denying the overabundance of evil blood mages in Kirkwall, which, as the champion, it was her duty to protect. She also guessed that Anders' murder of Elthina would be blamed on all mages, and hoped that if she (a mage) helped the templars, it would show that not all mages were untrustworthy. She sided with the templars because she thought it would actually help mages around Thedas.

Kirkwall is used as an example to the other Circle's that it doesn't matter if they follow the rules, they can still be killed for something they didn't do. That rose tensions considerably and made the templars more willing to crack down and the mages more resistant to toeing the line.

It may not have been what your Hawke intended, but few political snowballs follow the path we want them to.

Indeed. Pro-mages will use Kirkwall as an example that suits them, and others will see other lessons that might not be so flattering. I look at Kirkwall, for example, and saw a broken group dynamic within the mages themselves. In collective groups like the Circles, not breaking the rules yourself isn't enough- you have to oppose and help stop others who would break the rules as well. When what one person does reflects back and impacts everyone, it's everyone's responsibility to reign in those who would harm outsiders. Tolerance within a group gradually leads to acceptence and even institutionalized complicity. The Mages of Kirkwall didn't police themselves or their oppose their own Renegades, unlike Ferelden- they kept quiet regardless of what they knew of such abuses or rule breakings, regardless of the consequences, and hoped it wouldn't blow back on them. Their very leadership was complicit in enabling and protecting such Renegade actors.

For a non-pro-mage, Kirkwall is an excellent example that Mages can not be trusted as a community to police themselves or protect mundanes at the cost of their own interests.

[draken-heart]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Count Silvershroud wrote...

My very much good mage Hawke sided with Meredith the whole way. She didn't necessarily agree that annulment was the right thing to do, but she believed that the circle and templars are important to keep mages safe. And there is no denying the overabundance of evil blood mages in Kirkwall, which, as the champion, it was her duty to protect. She also guessed that Anders' murder of Elthina would be blamed on all mages, and hoped that if she (a mage) helped the templars, it would show that not all mages were untrustworthy. She sided with the templars because she thought it would actually help mages around Thedas.

Kirkwall is used as an example to the other Circle's that it doesn't matter if they follow the rules, they can still be killed for something they didn't do. That rose tensions considerably and made the templars more willing to crack down and the mages more resistant to toeing the line.

It may not have been what your Hawke intended, but few political snowballs follow the path we want them to.

End result is that there is no real choice in the game, so why play the game at all? IT is not like sparing or killing the mages will stop the ensuing war, so why force players into a non-existent choice.

Modifié par draken-heart, 21 décembre 2013 - 07:48 .

[dragonflight288]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Count Silvershroud wrote...

My very much good mage Hawke sided with Meredith the whole way. She didn't necessarily agree that annulment was the right thing to do, but she believed that the circle and templars are important to keep mages safe. And there is no denying the overabundance of evil blood mages in Kirkwall, which, as the champion, it was her duty to protect. She also guessed that Anders' murder of Elthina would be blamed on all mages, and hoped that if she (a mage) helped the templars, it would show that not all mages were untrustworthy. She sided with the templars because she thought it would actually help mages around Thedas.

Kirkwall is used as an example to the other Circle's that it doesn't matter if they follow the rules, they can still be killed for something they didn't do. That rose tensions considerably and made the templars more willing to crack down and the mages more resistant to toeing the line.

It may not have been what your Hawke intended, but few political snowballs follow the path we want them to.

Indeed. Pro-mages will use Kirkwall as an example that suits them, and others will see other lessons that might not be so flattering. I look at Kirkwall, for example, and saw a broken group dynamic within the mages themselves. In collective groups like the Circles, not breaking the rules yourself isn't enough- you have to oppose and help stop others who would break the rules as well. When what one person does reflects back and impacts everyone, it's everyone's responsibility to reign in those who would harm outsiders. Tolerance within a group gradually leads to acceptence and even institutionalized complicity. The Mages of Kirkwall didn't police themselves or their oppose their own Renegades, unlike Ferelden- they kept quiet regardless of what they knew of such abuses or rule breakings, regardless of the consequences, and hoped it wouldn't blow back on them. Their very leadership was complicit in enabling and protecting such Renegade actors.

For a non-pro-mage, Kirkwall is an excellent example that Mages can not be trusted as a community to police themselves or protect mundanes at the cost of their own interests.

And stepping away from mages and looking at Meredith's grab of power, it's also a lesson in what happens when a military power loyal to no country gains too much power. She had a templar death squad killing non-mages in broad daylight, openly denied allowing the nobles to choose a new viscount and even tried removing the Captain of the Guard to solidify Templar power. In essence, she had almost near unlimited power, not only over mages but also over non-mages in the city. To any king or queen, that alone would make them very wary of allowing templars any sort of political power at all.

There are a lot of lessons that can be learned from Kirkwall, since Kirkwall overall is truly nothing less than extreme in every measure.

[draken-heart]

DeadlyHaven wrote...

I'm sorry! It was for the achievement! DX

*Snorts in hilarity* This is funny. Anyways. There is no true right or wrong in the dragon age universe, and some forget that little detail.

[Yendor_Trawz]

Sided with the mages in the hope I would get to kill Templar Carver.

That inheritance would now be all mine.

And, never liked the brat.

[Magdalena11]

DeadlyHaven wrote...

I'm sorry! It was for the achievement! DX

This pretty much says it for me.

I can understand why this is such a hot topic.  Two basic beliefs are at stake - the right to freedom and the right for security.  Some people are going to feel the need for one overpowers the need for the other.  A few people will attempt to achieve a compromise.

[rosey1579]

Go for templars because of
a) Fenris
Fenris
c) Fenris's sexy voice
d) The party members want to (except Merrill, and I suppose Anders, but he doesn't count)

[KaiserShep]

Yendor_Trawz wrote...

Sided with the mages in the hope I would get to kill Templar Carver.

That inheritance would now be all mine.

And, never liked the brat.

I'm pretty OK with having Carver bite the big one in the prologue by an ogre.

[vixvicco]

I sided with the templars first time I played it because I could not look past the things that evil mages did-especially Anders who I felt betrayed me and the mage serial killer who killed Hawke's mother.

On reflection I would never choose her side again because not all mages are evil. But the game has definitely made me trust them a lot less.

But I accept your argument. Refelcting back, its about choosing the lesser of two evils (in a way).

Modifié par vixvicco, 29 janvier 2014 - 02:08 .

[dragonflight288]

vixvicco wrote...

I sided with the templars first time I played it because I could not look past the things that evil mages did-especially Anders who I felt betrayed me and the mage serial killer who killed Hawke's mother.

On reflection I would never choose her side again because not all mages are evil. But the game has definitely made me trust them a lot less.

But I accept your argument. Refelcting back, its about choosing the lesser of two evils (in a way).

I can understand, sort of, agreeing with the templars. But I cannot see them as the lesser evil when they, and I mean Meredith, was willing to commit genocide for a crime none of them committed, and at the point she offers the choice, her only argument is that a mob will demand blood, even though it is her job to protect the mages from said mob. 

[lil yonce]

A whole city in chaos might be hard to control, however.

[Get Magna Carter]

I think one big mistake with Dragon Age 2 was making the choice whether or not to side with a madwoman calling for an injustice and using the principle of mob rule to justify it.
(Rewarding the players who side with her and punishing those who do not)

A case could be made for the Right of Annulment but only because of the problems which had developed in that circle due to persecution from Meredith and the quiet corruption of the circle's leader.
Removing both of them could allow the Circle to return to normality

[dragonflight288]

Youth4Ever wrote...

A whole city in chaos might be hard to control, however.

Well, maybe if Meredith allowed a new Viscount to be appointed and let the City Guard do their job without meddling. :innocent:

[Trolldrool]

I'm just going to quote myself from a DA2 thread back in the days when I was still pro-templar before I stopped caring altogether for either side.

Trolldrool wrote...

While it's true that the templars and the chantry have brought all this upon themselves, as we have observed many times without fail that the more oppressive and extreme the templars become, the more mages will attempt to escape and/or become malifecarum to protect themselves from abuse or harm.

On the other side is the matter that there's no way a terrified mage, either resorting to slitting his wrists to summon demons or in a moment of debilitating despair becomes an easier target to demonic possession, doesn't unleash a marauding horde of demons on a city to fight the templars and somehow only templars are killed.

With the veil being torn asunder, demons will flood the streets, either left roaming by mages who don't care or by mages overcome with the need for escape. Any mage trying to hold them back and protect civilians would swiftly be slain by demons or be forced to become a blood mage to control them.

The templars, while arguably over zealous and perhaps even liable to butcher non-mages, convincing themselves they've slain blood mage conspirators, can't cause as much indiscriminate destruction as any panicked mage can. And that's why I chose to side with the templars on my first run. I reasoned that the civilian casualties would be high either way, but even higher without templars to regain control of the streets.

Whether my assumption was naïve or stupid or made no sense can of course be debated now, but it was my reason for siding with the templars on my first playthrough.

[ireneadler]

I used to hate the idea, but the more I play, the more I think it's a hard call. It's hard to say, in the end, if Orsino is much more defensible than Meredith. He did his part to keep Quentin from being brought to justice. In the end, he used Quentin's techniques to turn himself into a harvester in order to win a battle. He was as much of an ends-justifies-the-means person as Meredith was.

Another difficulty is that Kirkwall's mages have always been more prone to blood magic than those elsewhere, not only because the Tevinters' atrocities weakened the veil, but because the magisters were doing magic to weaken it even further. Blood magic and Kirkwall will go together for a very long time.

You have the opportunity to spare the lives of non-aggressors once in battle, although it's true---you aren't really aware of this when making the actual decision.

And then, of course, there's Anders... He kicked off the battle by engaging in an act of terrorism, and nothing about that seems defensible to me.

So... it's a matter of supporting someone who's gone power-hungry vs. loosing a number of blood mages on Kirkwall. I'm not sure one side is right and one is wrong. More and more, I'm learning to appreciate Elthina .

[IntoTheDarkness]

OP, whoever argues against you are those who should never be involved in law enforcement. Bioware dropped their ball on this one, and it's not even surprising. When have decisions ever been difficult to make in Bioware games?

Never in my gaming experience have I taken more than 5 secs to make decisions in Bioware games. The Witcher series, on the other hand, handles grey decisions so much better. I hope Bioware takes a few note from CDprojekt.

[Major Critical]

Was a hard choice for me since I was leaning towards helping the mages until Ander's stupidity came into play, romancing merril, and having Bethany as my sister made me think for awhile before choosing. That said I chose the Templar's and killed Ander's for what he did despite him being my Hawke's friend( friendship 100%) and my Hawke was diplomatic and never trusted Orsino , knew he was up to no good. I give Meredith some slack because she was already going crazy.

[KaiserShep]

I found the decision to be rather easy. Meredith overstepped her bounds in a big way, and I found the invocation of the Right of Annulment to be totally uncalled for. I didn't even consider it a matter between Orsino and Meredith themselves, because in the end, neither of them matter, and both of them were wrong. Executing a group of people for the actions of one man is unacceptable. Up until that moment I would have been willing to choose to help the Templars, since they are necessary, as is the Circle, and the fact that some of the worst stuff, like the tranquil solution, was in fact not sanctioned and died with the man who conceived it.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 17 février 2014 - 02:18 .

[First Enchanter Orsino]

because i'm an ass hole, hmm

[TheLittleBird]

because i'm an ass hole, hmm

 

So even Orsino went over to the Red side...... hmm.

[themikefest]

If it wasn't for the lyrium sword that Meredith had, would she of called the right of Annulment? Would the execution of Anders be enough for her? Who knows?

 

Orsino was a crappy First Enchanter who couldn't keep his mages in check. Everytime they get caught in a corner they resort to blood magic  giving the Templars and Meredith every reason to kill them. Orsino hides the piece of garbage that kills Hawkes mother. Of course when I learned that he was protecting Quentin, I never sided with the mages ever again even though I play a mage most of the time.

 

It's too bad that I couldn't sit back and watch them kill each other. But unfortunately I'm forced to choose sides and I choose Meredith.