538 réponses à ce sujet

[R0vena]

I don't know if anybody mentioned it, but if Hawke is intending to become Viscount he/she could side with Meredith for winning extra political power and finally achieve the goal or (with especially diabolic Hawkes) for having a chance to eliminate the rival (Meredith) during the chaos.

 

That said, siding with Meredith depends purely on what kind of Hawke it is. Some could be plain and simple magic haters and believe Meredith has it completely right. Some could be sick of all abominations and crazy mages running around (after all, one crazy mage killed Hawke's mother and the other crazy mage kidnapped Hawke's sibling/lover/friend even after Hawke helped her), some don't care at all, but will go with what their best friends suggest (Fenris and Aveline, for example, if that Hawke had good relationship with them).

 

ps edit, sorry, I meant Fenris.

Modifié par R0vena, 06 juillet 2016 - 07:04 .

[Catilina]

I don't know if anybody mentioned it, but if Hawke is intending to become Viscount he/she could side with Meredith for winning extra political power and finally achieve the goal or (with especially diabolic Hawkes) for having a chance to eliminate the rival (Meredith) during the chaos.

 

That said, siding with Meredith depends purely on what kind of Hawke it is. Some could be plain and simple magic haters and believe Meredith has it completely right. Some could be sick of all abominations and crazy mages running around (after all, one crazy mage killed Hawke's mother and the other crazy mage kidnapped Hawke's sibling/lover/friend even after Hawke helped her), some don't care at all, but will go with what their best friends suggest (Fenris and Aveline, for example, if that Hawke had good relationship with them).

 

ps edit, sorry, I meant Fenris.

Hawke did not know, when he choose side, that he will beat Meredith in the battle, and the Templars elected him a baron. 

He just know that Orsino and Meredith do not like each other, and Meredith is paranoid. And if he is a warrior or rogue, templars may have been kidnapped his/her sister to where they tranquilized Karl for nothing (remember: the tranqulizing not a punishment for organizing the escape, but the final solution to stop a dangerous blood mage).

 

Hawke's mother killed by a crazy serialkiller, not by "mages"... (the kidnapper also was crazy). As you also said. the keyword is the crazy.

 

Aveline and Fenris able to follow Hawke anywhere. Gladly.

[Spirit Vanguard]

Here is the thing, I agree with the above but I still side with Meredith.
The reason is that regardless of how wrong she might be, Meredith will pursue the Right of Annulment and there is no reason to believe the Templars will disobey her if the Champion disagrees with her. Ergo, it doesn't matter what Hawke chooses, the Right of Annulment will happen and innocent citizens of Kirkwall will be caught in the crossfire.
 
Therefore, from my point of view, the choice becomes:
 
1-Side with the Mages and prolong the fight so that they can escape, therefore causing greater harm to the city or
 
2-Side with the Templars and lend Hawke's considerable prowess to the elimination of the mages thus minimizing the amount of fighting and, naturally, the number of people caught in the middle.
 
Thus, I must choose the option that places the citizens of Kirkwall first which is to side with the Templars. After all, is Hawke the Champion of Kirkwall or the Champion of Kirkwall's Circle?

Mm, I don't see how that will minimize fighting. Mages are defending themselves regardless in either situation -- I dare say that with the Champion on their side they won't feel as hopeless and are more likely to keep a clear head. Because they aren't alone. There will be damage no matter what.

Siding with Meredith just because "it's inevitable" is part of the problem. Genocide isn't the answer. Protecting the Circle is protecting innocents, and that seems well within what a Champion would do. Saying "this is a bad thing that I can't stop so I'll go along with it anyway" when you actually have a choice to fight it. "The only way bad men win is when good men do nothing."

And again: protecting mages it what templars are supposed to do. We'll probably never agree on this subject because I don't see how genocide solves any problem. (Unless it's about Aliens... Then I might agree. ) Moreover, this incident would only spread to the other Circles and a rebellion would still be inspired. Crap already hit the fan. Game over. Siding with Meredith just places Hawke on the wrong side of history.

[R0vena]

 

Hawke did not know, when he choose side, that he will beat Meredith in the battle, and the Templars elected him a baron. 

He just know that Orsino and Meredith do not like each other, and Meredith is paranoid. And if he is a warrior or rogue, templars may have been kidnapped his/her sister to where they tranquilized Karl for nothing (remember: the tranqulizing not a punishment for organizing the escape, but the final solution to stop a dangerous blood mage).

 

Hawke's mother killed by a crazy serialkiller, not by "mages"... (the kidnapper also was crazy). As you also said. the keyword is the crazy.

 

Aveline and Fenris able to follow Hawke anywhere. Gladly.

 

1. Hawke possibly becoming Viscount could be brought up before. And it is pretty clear Meredith would be in the way. So it is not strange Hawke could think that.

 

2. Let me give an example of what I mean. My mother was bitten by a dog when she was a child. Fifty years later she still hates and is afraid of all dogs she meets. My husband was bitten by a dog when he was a child. He loves dogs nonetheless and doesn't hold that incident against all dogs. All people are different and could react in different way to the same event. And honestly, I have no idea how I would react if I were Hawke. It's all nice and well debating this sitting in the comfortable chair in front of the computer. If I were to grow in Ferelden like Hawke... if I were to experience all Hawke had... I have no idea what my state of mind would be. Hell, I probably would end up abomination and be slain by some mighty hero. Or may be I will be a mighty hero? That is the point. I don't know. There are limitless possibilities. One is just as possible as the other.

 

When people say "I can't understand how you can do X or Y" in video games, they usually mean that they - as they are now - would never do it. But they were not born in that fictional world and had not experienced all the hero had. I bet everything if they did they would not be 100% the same people they are right now. 

 

Now,  if somebody prefers to play self-inserts - good for them. But it is a role-playing game. And if I want to play a Hawke who sides with Meredith - I see a lot of reasons to do it. Just the same if I want to play Hawke who sides with mages. That's the beauty of the role playing. 

 

3. Sure, but Aveline and Fenris still have their clear preferences. That they follow Hawke out of respect doesn't change that. You can even make Anders to side with Templars, this doesn't mean it is what he himself wants to do.

[Catilina]

1. Hawke possibly becoming Viscount could be brought up before. And it is pretty clear Meredith would be in the way. So it is not strange Hawke could think that.

 

2. Let me give an example of what I mean. My mother was bitten by a dog when she was a child. Fifty years later she still hates and is afraid of all dogs she meets. My husband was bitten by a dog when he was a child. He loves dogs nonetheless and doesn't hold that incident against all dogs. All people are different and could react in different way to the same event. And honestly, I have no idea how I would react if I were Hawke. It's all nice and well debating this sitting in the comfortable chair in front of the computer. If I were to grow in Ferelden like Hawke... if I were to experience all Hawke had... I have no idea what my state of mind would be. Hell, I probably would end up abomination and be slain by some mighty hero. Or may be I will be a mighty hero? That is the point. I don't know. There are limitless possibilities. One is just as possible as the other.

 

When people say "I can't understand how you can do X or Y" in video games, they usually mean that they - as they are now - would never do it. But they were not born in that fictional world and had not experienced all the hero had. I bet everything if they did they would not be 100% the same people they are right now. 

 

Now,  if somebody prefers to play self-inserts - good for them. But it is a role-playing game. And if I want to play a Hawke who sides with Meredith - I see a lot of reasons to do it. Just the same if I want to play Hawke who sides with mages. That's the beauty of the role playing. 

 

3. Sure, but Aveline and Fenris still have their clear preferences. That they follow Hawke out of respect doesn't change that. You can even make Anders to side with Templars, this doesn't mean it is what he himself wants to do.

Yes. You can see causes, why you want to side with templars (for example Carver are templar, or Hawke hate his/her mage sister, and want to kill her [remember to the annulment]), but I do not see a logical cause. Because Meredith is the biggest threat at the moment for the city. She is crazy, have power, and do not want to pass, because he is paranoid.

 

Meredith do not want that Hawke to be viscount. That clearly. This means: as long as Meredith alive, he would not be Baron.

 

Anders is not Fenris. By the time we get there, Fenris got rid of his extreme hatred, and he do not care about the Templars (if Hawke in love with him, he totally satisfied with this), but Anders still have inside Justice/Vengeance, and this will kill him, if Hawke forcing him to the templar side (this fact do not change, if Hawke in love with him). Simple: Fenris survives the support of the mages, as Aveline too. Anders do not survive the support of the templars. 

If someone wants to kill him, and have not already done so, the templar side the best choice for it. 

[R0vena]

Yes. You can see causes, why you want to side with templars (for example Carver are templar, or Hawke hate his/her mage sister, and want to kill her [remember to the annulment]), but I do not see a logical cause. Because Meredith is the biggest threat at the moment for the city. She is crazy, have power, and do not want to pass, because he is paranoid.

 

Meredith do not want that Hawke to be viscount. That clearly. This means: as long as Meredith alive, he would not be Baron.

 

Anders is not Fenris. By the time we get there, Fenris got rid of his extreme hatred, and he do not care about the Templars (if Hawke in love with him, he totally satisfied with this), but Anders still have inside Justice/Vengeance, and this will kill him, if Hawke forcing him to the templar side (this fact do not change, if Hawke in love with him). Simple: Fenris survives the support of the Mages, as Aveline too. Anders do not survive the support of the templars. 

If someone wants to kill him, and have not already done so, the templar side the best choice for it. 

 

Logical for you. For Hawke depending on his/her personality it could be different. What if Hawke admires Meredith, for example? What if the fact that Meredith is a threat doesn't matter for Hawke? Or Hawke thinks she could be dealt with later, after the present crisis is ended?

 

If you mean logical in sense "objectively right", I don't think such thing exists in DA universe. We are given choices for a reason and debating whose choice is objectively better is as pointless as debate "My LI is better that yours".

 

Anders was just an example that the fact that your companions follow you doesn't mean that he/she hasn't different preference (that your hero is usually perfectly aware of). Both Merrill and Isabela clearly favor mages yet with enough Friendship/Rivalry they will follow Hawke to the templar side just as well.

[Catilina]

Logical for you. For Hawke depending on his/her personality it could be different. What if Hawke admires Meredith, for example? What if the fact that Meredith is a threat doesn't matter for Hawke? Or Hawke thinks she could be dealt with later, after the present crisis is ended?

 

If you mean logical in sense "objectively right", I don't think such thing exists in DA universe. We are given choices for a reason and debating whose choice is objectively better is as pointless as debate "My LI is better that yours".

 

Anders was just an example that the fact that your companions follow you doesn't mean that he/she hasn't different preference (that your hero is usually perfectly aware of). Both Merrill and Isabela clearly favor mages yet with enough Friendship/Rivalry they will follow Hawke to the templar side just as well.

The admiration is not logical thing, and certainly not objective, rather absolutely emotional. 

 

By the way: I really have a logical reason: the Templars there are more, and more powerful. For example this could be a good point for the support the templars.

 

I don't think Isabela care too much the mages, but yes, Merrill will be sad (or left Hawke, if s/he don't have enough reputation, just as Anders – or Fenris, if Hawke support the mages), if you support the templars, but only Anders will die.

 

Of course, everyone else thinks about it otherwhence. This is my opinion. And you can recall, what Varric said from the opinions.

[MisterJB]

Mm, I don't see how that will minimize fighting. Mages are defending themselves regardless in either situation -- I dare say that with the Champion on their side they won't feel as hopeless and are more likely to keep a clear head. Because they aren't alone. There will be damage no matter what.

Siding with Meredith just because "it's inevitable" is part of the problem. Genocide isn't the answer. Protecting the Circle is protecting innocents, and that seems well within what a Champion would do. Saying "this is a bad thing that I can't stop so I'll go along with it anyway" when you actually have a choice to fight it. "The only way bad men win is when good men do nothing."

What you are doing is reducing the issue at hand to a simple moral conundrum. The Circle is innocent of what Anders did, ergo protecting it is protecting is innocents and that is good.

However, there are other factors to take into account such as the civilian population of Kirkwall and how they are affected by the fighting.

The number of Templar combatants are more numerous that the mage combatants given the fact they don't have a civilian population. Likewise, the mages are a minority when compared to the kirkwallers.
Let's say that there are 100 combat ready mages against 300 templars with a thousand civillians in the middle.
Whoever has Hawke assisting can kill 25 enemies per round with 50 civillians dying per round as well.

So, if Hawke sides with the mages, it will take 12 rounds to defeat the templars which leads to the death of 600 innocent civilians. You've killed six innocent people for every mage you saved.

On the other hand, if Hawke sides with the templars, it will take only four rounds to defeat them all which means that only 200 civillians die. That is a difference of 400 innocent people which is four times the number of the mages.

Logically; despite the fact these numbers aren't exact; we can see that siding with the templars saves more innocent lives than siding with the mages.

Then, there is also the fact that eliminating the mage population will eliminate the reason for contention within the city whereas saving them will not. By eliminating the reason for conflict, we eliminate it thus saving even more lives.

 

Now, this involves killing innocent people, yes but to save even more.

 

 

And again: protecting mages it what templars are supposed to do. We'll probably never agree on this subject because I don't see how genocide solves any problem. (Unless it's about Aliens... Then I might agree.  ) Moreover, this incident would only spread to the other Circles and a rebellion would still be inspired. Crap already hit the fan. Game over. Siding with Meredith just places Hawke on the wrong side of history.

The "wrong side of history"?

C'mon now, that is a very complex subject that involves victorious factions spreading notions that become widely accepted by the population at large.

Suffice it to say, the mages don't meet any of these requirements. Even in the event that the Inquisition sides with them, there is never any indication that the population has accepted a pro-mage narrative regarding the incident in kirkwall and before the DAI, the mage rebellion was despised by everyone in Thedas with every city except Redcliff barring their doors to mages.

[R0vena]

 

The admiration is not logical thing, and certainly not objective, rather absolutely emotional. 

 

By the way: I really have a logical reason: the Templars there are more, and more powerful. For example this could be a good point for the support the templars.

 

I don't think Isabela care too much the mages, but yes, Merrill will be sad (or left Hawke, if s/he don't have enough reputation, just as Anders – or Fenris, if Hawke support the mages), if you support the templars, but only Anders will die.

 

Of course, everyone else thinks about it otherwhence. This is my opinion. And you can recall, what Varric said from the opinions.

 

 

Oh, I recall.)) 

 

OP asked about reasons - people told their reasons. The fact that for somebody else these reasons are not enough doesn't make them any less valid. Or not logical (I still think we understand this word a bit different.) Half of my Hawkes sided with mages, half of my Hawkes sided with templars and all of them had perfectly good reasons to do so - in my opinion.) In fact, my favorite PT's are the ones where my Hawke starts on one side but because of circumstances slowly changes views and ends on the opposite side. Did it both ways (from mages to templars and from templars to mages) and it was absolutely one of the best role-playing experiences I had. 

[Catilina]

What you are doing is reducing the issue at hand to a simple moral conundrum. The Circle is innocent of what Anders did, ergo protecting it is protecting is innocents and that is good.

However, there are other factors to take into account such as the civilian population of Kirkwall and how they are affected by the fighting.

The number of Templar combatants are more numerous that the mage combatants given the fact they don't have a civilian population. Likewise, the mages are a minority when compared to the kirkwallers.
Let's say that there are 100 combat ready mages against 300 templars with a thousand civillians in the middle.
Whoever has Hawke assisting can kill 25 enemies per round with 50 civillians dying per round as well.

So, if Hawke sides with the mages, it will take 12 rounds to defeat the templars which leads to the death of 600 innocent civilians. You've killed six innocent people for every mage you saved.

On the other hand, if Hawke sides with the templars, it will take only four rounds to defeat them all which means that only 200 civillians die. That is a difference of 400 innocent people which is four times the number of the mages.

Logically; despite the fact these numbers aren't exact; we can see that siding with the templars saves more innocent lives than siding with the mages.

Then, there is also the fact that eliminating the mage population will eliminate the reason for contention within the city whereas saving them will not. By eliminating the reason for conflict, we eliminate it thus saving even more lives.

 

Now, this involves killing innocent people, yes but to save even more.

 

 

The "wrong side of history"?

C'mon now, that is a very complex subject that involves victorious factions spreading notions that become widely accepted by the population at large.

Suffice it to say, the mages don't meet any of these requirements. Even in the event that the Inquisition sides with them, there is never any indication that the population has accepted a pro-mage narrative regarding the incident in kirkwall and before the DAI, the mage rebellion was despised by everyone in Thedas with every city except Redcliff barring their doors to mages.

I think: the civilians are in their house. There is no air raid, bombing, ergo there is no or minimal civilian casualties.

[Catilina]

Oh, I recall.)) 

 

OP asked about reasons - people told their reasons. The fact that for somebody's else these reasons are not enough doesn't make them any less valid. Or not logical (I still think we understand this word a bit different.) Half of my Hawkes sided with mages, half of my Hawkes sided with templars and all of them had perfectly good reasons to do so - in my opinion.) In fact, my favorite PT's are the ones where my Hawke starts on one side but because of circumstances slowly changes views and ends on the opposite side. Did it both ways (from mages to templars and from templars to mages) and it was absolutely one of the best role-playing experiences I had. 

I also have one Hawke, who landed at the templar side finally (he was pro mage before). Why? Because of Carver. This was my Hawke's cause. (But I didn't like this decision...)

[R0vena]

I also have one Hawke, who landed at the templar side finally (he was pro mage before). Why? Because of Carver. This was my Hawke's cause.

Well, it is a perfectly good cause.)

 

I had a Hawke who had Bethany in the Circle and sided with templars because he thought  it will give him the best opportunity to save her (aka grab her and and get the hell out of Kirkwall without fighting every templar in sight) and he didn't care about anything else. I don't say it was a good plan, but it made sense for that particular Hawke.

 

ps The offer to become Viscount was  really a huge surprise for him in the end.

[Catilina]

Well, it is a perfectly good cause.)

 

I had a Hawke who had Bethany in the Circle and sided with templars because he thought  it will give him the best opportunity to save her (aka grab her and and get the hell out of Kirkwall without fighting every templar in sight) and he didn't care about anything else. I don't say it was a good plan, but it made sense for that particular Hawke.

Interesting idea.

[Spirit Vanguard]

What you are doing is reducing the issue at hand to a simple moral conundrum. The Circle is innocent of what Anders did, ergo protecting it is protecting is innocents and that is good.
However, there are other factors to take into account such as the civilian population of Kirkwall and how they are affected by the fighting.
The number of Templar combatants are more numerous that the mage combatants given the fact they don't have a civilian population. Likewise, the mages are a minority when compared to the kirkwallers.Let's say that there are 100 combat ready mages against 300 templars with a thousand civillians in the middle.Whoever has Hawke assisting can kill 25 enemies per round with 50 civillians dying per round as well.So, if Hawke sides with the mages, it will take 12 rounds to defeat the templars which leads to the death of 600 innocent civilians. You've killed six innocent people for every mage you saved.On the other hand, if Hawke sides with the templars, it will take only four rounds to defeat them all which means that only 200 civillians die. That is a difference of 400 innocent people which is four times the number of the mages.Logically; despite the fact these numbers aren't exact; we can see that siding with the templars saves more innocent lives than siding with the mages.Then, there is also the fact that eliminating the mage population will eliminate the reason for contention within the city whereas saving them will not. By eliminating the reason for conflict, we eliminate it thus saving even more lives.
 
Now, this involves killing innocent people, yes but to save even more.
 
 

The "wrong side of history"?
C'mon now, that is a very complex subject that involves victorious factions spreading notions that become widely accepted by the population at large.
Suffice it to say, the mages don't meet any of these requirements. Even in the event that the Inquisition sides with them, there is never any indication that the population has accepted a pro-mage narrative regarding the incident in kirkwall and before the DAI, the mage rebellion was despised by everyone in Thedas with every city except Redcliff barring their doors to mages.

Bigger picture depends on your view. Like I said, eliminating the mages in Kirkwall on the grounds of what we both agreed is wrong won't stem the tide elsewhere. Looking at the situation through numbers is a pragmatic approach and noble to want to save as many people as possible, but ignoring the larger issue. Sacrificing the few for the many is a slippery slope.

"Wrong side of history" in the looser term that genocide is wrong -- doubly so when it's a rash reaction to a crime they didn't commit. It wouldn't be right to kill all the templars in Kirkwall, or anywhere else, because of Meredith.

The real problem is how magic is viewed and misunderstood.

[Lord of War]

What you are doing is reducing the issue at hand to a simple moral conundrum. The Circle is innocent of what Anders did, ergo protecting it is protecting is innocents and that is good.

However, there are other factors to take into account such as the civilian population of Kirkwall and how they are affected by the fighting.

The number of Templar combatants are more numerous that the mage combatants given the fact they don't have a civilian population. Likewise, the mages are a minority when compared to the kirkwallers.
Let's say that there are 100 combat ready mages against 300 templars with a thousand civillians in the middle.
Whoever has Hawke assisting can kill 25 enemies per round with 50 civillians dying per round as well.

So, if Hawke sides with the mages, it will take 12 rounds to defeat the templars which leads to the death of 600 innocent civilians. You've killed six innocent people for every mage you saved.

On the other hand, if Hawke sides with the templars, it will take only four rounds to defeat them all which means that only 200 civillians die. That is a difference of 400 innocent people which is four times the number of the mages.

Logically; despite the fact these numbers aren't exact; we can see that siding with the templars saves more innocent lives than siding with the mages.

Then, there is also the fact that eliminating the mage population will eliminate the reason for contention within the city whereas saving them will not. By eliminating the reason for conflict, we eliminate it thus saving even more lives.

 

Now, this involves killing innocent people, yes but to save even more.

 

 

Not really. Even if the mages are dead, Meredith (presumably) remains in charge, and her hunt for mages outside the Circle, their families and other collaborators, and other political dissidents will continue, and probably become even more intense. Defending the mages isn't just about their freedom, but freeing Kirkwall from the Templar junta's police state.

[MisterJB]

Bigger picture depends on your view. Like I said, eliminating the mages in Kirkwall on the grounds of what we both agreed is wrong won't stem the tide elsewhere. Looking at the situation through numbers is a pragmatic approach and noble to want to save as many people as possible, but ignoring the larger issue. Sacrificing the few for the many is a slippery slope.

"Wrong side of history" in the looser term that genocide is wrong -- doubly so when it's a rash reaction to a crime they didn't commit. It wouldn't be right to kill all the templars in Kirkwall, or anywhere else, because of Meredith.

The real problem is how magic is viewed and misunderstood.

 

And how exactly is it the Champion of Kirkwall legitimizing the mage's action and maybe save a few dozens is going to steam the tide elsewhere?

[Catilina]

And how exactly is it the Champion of Kirkwall legitimizing the mage's action and maybe save a few dozens is going to steam the tide elsewhere?

Hawke can not assume any responsibility for Kirkwall. S/he has earned his title, because s/he saved Kirkwall from the qunari. But Meredith prevents Hawke from creating peace. Meredith's Templars also obstruct the work of city guards. Kirkwall can be no peace as long as Meredith lives.

[Spirit Vanguard]

And how exactly is it the Champion of Kirkwall legitimizing the mage's action and maybe save a few dozens is going to steam the tide elsewhere?

  
"Legitimizing" the mages by helping them save themselves from Meredith? It's all the tip of the iceberg. How Hawke chooses to respond to the situation sets a tone across Thedas, a ripple or domino effect. Once the Chanrty explodes it's not longer just about Kirkwall. I didn't say helping them would stem the tide, but I do think it would reinforce the idea that mages are expendable in the greater scheme of things. They are people and should be treated like people.

If the idea is to depose Meredith after helping the templars, than that's a gray area. One that doesn't quite exist within the game's definition.

Look, I said I knew we wouldn't agree and I'm not trying to antagonize you. We just don't see eye-to-eye and that's probably all there is to it. If discussing this further is just going to sour both of us, then maybe it's gone far enough. It feels a little like we're headed toward something Isabela offered: "Justice works in a world of ideas, but not our world" and that's a larger philosophy that I'm not sure I want to debate.
 

Hawke can not assume any responsibility for Kirkwall. S/he has earned his title, because s/he saved Kirkwall from the qunari. But Meredith prevents Hawke from creating peace. Meredith's Templars also obstruct the work of city guards. Kirkwall can be no peace as long as Meredith lives.

I agree, but if there had been a way to save her from herself/red lyrium, I would've preferred that.

[Spirit Vanguard]

I guess the devs just wanted to force an inevitable conflict between mages and templars, but failed to shape the game's events to pass that exact impression.

Instead, the player feels the whole conflict is exaggerated, rather than that Kirkwall is doomed. As a result, Meredith's and Orsino's actions seem nothing but irrational as the end draws near and their final actions feel somewhat unjustified.


As for Elthina, my impression is that she was just there to maintain the status quo rather than to solve any conflicts between the Circle and the Templar Order.
The Chantry is an institution intrinsically connected to the Templar Order, for both of them are devoted to keeping mages under control. While templars are the sword, the sisters are the heart and the mind. They're the ones responsible for controlling mages not by force, but through manipulation of guilt (for magic is associated with sin. So in the eyes of the Maker, all mages are born sinners and, therefore, must be watched closely).


All in all, Elthina wasn't there to solve anything, only to maintain order when tempers flared. She could never turn against the templars, not when the Knight-Commander had expanded her power and influence so greatly ove the city. So she overlooks certain misdeeds the templars have commited, and she does that by choice.
But indeed Elthina was wrong. She should have done more to prevent the crimes perpetrated by the Templar Order, fought corruption within the Order and listened to the Circle mages, so as to know about the cases of abuse and bring an end to them. And it's her role as a peace keeper, not a watcher over injustices commited against mages that leads Anders to choose her as the victim for the terrorist act - or rebellious one, depending on your view of the conflict - that would seal her fate and start the revolution.

I agree completely.

I know Elthina can't rival the templars in any way which is signaling an underlying problem -- if a Chantry grand cleric cannot admit to wrongs they're organization is doing then how can anything change? Not fully acknowledging that part of the institution she serves is corrupt and corroding its own purpose is just baffling when she should want to mediate more properly. By trying to remain "neutral" she let the madness continue as well -- game limitations would account for it, I suppose. That she says she "feels for the mages" seems a hollow statement. Like she really doesn't understand what is really happening. Crazed blood mages outside the Circle continue to enforce the idea that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" meanwhile templars prove the same philosophy --- it isn't limited to magic. Alrik, clearly, is an example of that. Meredith I'm still willing to cut a little slack because of red lyrium -- and that she thinks she's doing the right thing. That's something.

It's funny, because Mother Giselle claims the Chantry teaches that "pride" is sinful, not magic. Hah, really? First I'm hearing of this. That may have well been the intention but is no longer the practice. The Chantry really brought about its own demise long before Kirkwall.

When Cassandra says that the Seekers had looked into the situation in Kirkwall, she claims that there was so much magical corruption that Meredith's actions were deemed "acceptable" or whatever word she used. That's confounding -- how is abusing Tranquility ever acceptable? -- and only further proved that the "authority" over mages lost touch. Cassandra does admit that if they had looked closer it might've been different, but they didn't.

True. The Chantry, Elthina, Meredith, it was a lot of birds with one stone. As much as I wish it hadn't come to an extreme measure, I can understand why Anders did it. I'm always wondering if it could've been avoided while doubting a peaceful resolution at the same time. A quick death now or a slow death later... Death is never justice... I believe both, so where does that leave me? Ugh.

[Lord of War]

 

True. The Chantry, Elthina, Meredith, it was a lot of birds with one stone. As much as I wish it hadn't come to an extreme measure, I can understand why Anders did it. I'm always wondering if it could've been avoided while doubting a peaceful resolution at the same time. A quick death now or a slow death later... Death is never justice... I believe both, so where does that leave me? Ugh.

 

 

I think Elthina's line is arguable, and that her position in an organization that can outright decide what's "just" and what isn't across most of Thedas makes her opinion a bit suspect. I also think that people like her and Meredith will never get the justice they deserve (neither will their victims) as long the current system is in place, and that their deaths are closest things to that anyway.

[MisterJB]

"Legitimizing" the mages by helping them save themselves from Meredith? It's all the tip of the iceberg. How Hawke chooses to respond to the situation sets a tone across Thedas, a ripple or domino effect. Once the Chanrty explodes it's not longer just about Kirkwall. I didn't say helping them would stem the tide, but I do think it would reinforce the idea that mages are expendable in the greater scheme of things. They are people and should be treated like people.

If the idea is to depose Meredith after helping the templars, than that's a gray area. One that doesn't quite exist within the game's definition.

Look, I said I knew we wouldn't agree and I'm not trying to antagonize you. We just don't see eye-to-eye and that's probably all there is to it. If discussing this further is just going to sour both of us, then maybe it's gone far enough. It feels a little like we're headed toward something Isabela offered: "Justice works in a world of ideas, but not our world" and that's a larger philosophy that I'm not sure I want to debate.

If my replies come off as antagonistic, that's not my intent. I love to debate and it's rare to find someone I haven't engaged before in these forums. My atitude towards you hás certainly not hardened as a result of a couple of posts.

[Spirit Vanguard]

If my replies come off as antagonistic, that's not my intent. I love to debate and it's rare to find someone I haven't engaged before in these forums. My atitude towards you hás certainly not hardened as a result of a couple of posts.

Haha, well you know Internet and words and all that. It can be hard to discern tones. I like a little discussion too, but not when it feels it's not going anywhere. (Which is what happens most of the time.) And that doesn't mean it should reach a "I'm wrong, you're right" point, but, you know...

For what it's worth, I can appreciate your argument and what you're saying but just don't agree with it. Maybe I'm too much of a renegade. There isn't an entirely "right" way to handle the situation which is part of the point. I stand with the mages because no one else will and they deserve better than what they've been given. It's actually pretty surprising how strongly I can feel about mages. Or maybe it isn't. I don't know.

[Seraphim24]

It's a really good question.

 

Mages were obviously the better choice.

[Spirit Vanguard]

I think Elthina's line is arguable, and that her position in an organization that can outright decide what's "just" and what isn't across most of Thedas makes her opinion a bit suspect. I also think that people like her and Meredith will never get the justice they deserve (neither will their victims) as long the current system is in place, and that their deaths are closest things to that anyway.

 

"Death is never justice" is a pretty broad term but I still agree with it. There are few times when I feel death is a necessary outcome -- unfortunately in a video game our choices in how we handle things is limited. What good does more death do? I know I'm naive and idealistic, but violence invites more violence. That's why Justice in DAA has a difficult time understanding mortals and their world, because justice is a relative term in a reality of gray. (Unless you're Samara, then right and wrong are facts. ) "Eye for an eye makes the world go blind."

 

I can sympathize with Elthina's limitations to an extent, but it's those inflexible limitations that have harmed the chantry. They've spent far too long up in their ivory tower thinking they know what's best better than everyone else and fell because of it. That's what happens. Personally, I don't care for the chantry. At all. I think they're full of crap, believing their own teachings because that's all they've known for centuries. That's why... spoiler tag because this is DA2's section:

 

Spoiler

I prefer Lelianna as Divine. "I'd change things. Change everything."

[sandalisthemaker]

I sided with the mages on my first playthrough, but after that, siding with the Templars became my canon for DA2. 

 

Yes, Kirkwall's circle was pretty harsh, but seeing so many mages wreaking havok with blood magic throughout the game, that whole WTF moment with Grace, Quentin, fighting nearly as many mage-turned-abominations as templars during the final battle when siding with the mages, and that WTF moment with Orsino.... My Hawkes have had enough with uncontrolled magic.