538 réponses à ce sujet

[General TSAR]

Getting back to the topic.....

Aside from my Hawke's pragmatic goals, I LOVE the Templar Order and Crusaders/ Medieval Holy Warriors in general.

Modifié par General TSAR, 04 novembre 2013 - 12:30 .

[MisterJB]

In Exile wrote...
Yes. It is. Because even if you only save a few lives you're still not actively cutting down people for a crime they didn't committ. Even if you think that much of the Circle is filled with blood mages, you can't prove any one mage is a BM unless they happen to use BM. So you're killing the potentially innocent with the guilty. 

There's a huge - huge - moral difference between trying to save people and failing, and executing people yourself for a crime you don't know they've necessarily committed.

I find that there is greater morality in killing a hundred to save a thousand than in allowing a thousand to die just because I was unable to kill innocents.
Morality is subjective and I don't expect you to agree but Hawke is the Champion of Kirkwall. That means Hawke must place the good of the city as a whole above everything else.

Given that the mages are retreating to the Gallows, not very many. There's no evidence of a massive war in the streets, and there's no evidence that the templars are forced to fight in the streets of Kirkwall since the entire action is at the Gallows. When you side with Orsino, he makes it clear that's where all the mages are retreating. 

Seeing as how Hawke beelines it right for the Gallows, then only mages in the streets you would fight are the ones you run into. So even siding with the mages, Hawke kills exactly the same number of potential demons. 

The only thing left is whether or not mages that aren't abominations yet turn into demons, and since we know stress and fear can get a mage auto-possessed, by executing templars Hawke saves Kirkwall by preveting mages from turning into abominations. So, huzzah! The genocide excuse to save the city doesn't work. More dead templars = less mage abominations. 

The city is ablaze because Meredith set it ablaze when she declared she was going to murder every single mage in Kirkwall. There's something monstrous in saying you're going to participate in genocide and use a tragedy that the person who declared the genocide created as a justification for engaging in genocide.

Meredith didn't take a torch and started burning buildings for the fun of it. Obviously, those fires are being provoked by flame spells. There is no reason to believe Hawke encounters every single mage and templar in the city on his/her way to the Gallows so, there are likely other figths happening that we just aren't seeing.

Plus, Hawke can't defeat the Templars; Kirkwall is the center of templar power in the east. It doesn't matter how many templars s/he kills, there will always be more coming for the mages who will become Abominations in respose or, at best, use highly destructive spells that are bound to catch civillians.
Sword and arrows are much less accident prone. Therefore, logically, the best way to minimize collateral damage is to kill the combatants that are releasing firestorms; which is an actual spell; in the streets of Kirkwall. 

You mean, Hawke has to committ mass murder either way, except in this case he does it against a group of volunteer soldiers who could have refused to follow orders and not perpetrated genocide?

No, that wasn't what I meant which should be obvious given the very next phrase I wrote.

This is exactly what happens if Hawke sides with the Circle. So... yes, mages will flee the Circle. 

Even if Hawke sides with the Circle, the Templars win. Obviously, the mages can't remain in that instance.
What I proposed was an hypothetical scenario where Hawke defeated the Templars. 

Or maybe the people will love that the tyrant Meredith was slain by the heroic mages and hold hands with them to create a paradise. Since this is all fan-fiction, it ihas nothing to do with whether or not genocide is justified.

Hypotheses based on common human behavior in conjuction with information retrieved from the game differs from fanfiction.
 

The right thing to do is to shove a sword through Meredith's throat the second she declares the ROA and then dare any templar still alive around her to take you and the city guard on. Hawke's mistake is in not outright attacking and trying to kill Meredith the second she declared the Rite. 

Yeah, that would have pacified the Templars (sarcasm)
Regardless, it's not an option.

Modifié par MisterJB, 04 novembre 2013 - 12:35 .

[Red Panda]

Considering the fact that both sides are revolting to me, I flip a coin.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Not sure why anybody would side with the templars, when you side with the mages you get to kill all the templars and bat**** crazy mages, so it is all good. Both the Kirkwall templars and circle deserves to be purged.

[Shadow Fox]

What I think MisterJB is saying is there is no "best" solution either way people are screwed he just picks what he sees as the lesser of two evils.

I could be wrong though.

[archulysses17]

for the best of kirkwall, side with meredith...
for the sake of the oppressed mages and what's right, side with orsino...

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I will admit, I've often said that I feel the dilemma should have been constructed better. I can think of a justification for siding with the templars, but mostly I still think it was better to side with Orsino in that case. Ultimately it comes down to Hawke's optimism vs pessimism for how much damage the battle will cause.

If Anders had an number of confederates hidden within the Circle that helped him destroy the Chantry or if Orsino had openly threatened to unleash demons and blood magic in response to the Annulment, then it would have become a question of whether Hawke should punish the guilty with the innocent or if it's too high of a price to bring murderers to justice. THAT would have been very hard.

As it stands Meredith asks me to punish the mages on the basis of simply being mages in Kirkwall.

[Bardox9]

MWImexico wrote...

Bardox9 wrote...
I am pro-Mage, but I still support the templars at the end. Until that point I help the mages. By the end it
truely is too late. The ROA is overkill in Kirkwall's case. It's not THAT bad. The insanity brought on by the idol pushed things to that point. Once the line was crossed, there was no going back. Anders saw to that. You have to pick a side. Orsino and his blood mages that want to rule the world...OR... Meredith and her bigoted templars that will kill
every mage that takes up arms against them to keep the evil contained to the tower?

How can you be so sure that the blood mages in the circle are evil? What if they are not, or only a portion of them ? (Alain didn't seemed evil for me, Malcolm Hawke neither)

I can understand you don't want to take the risk though. It's a difficult choice.

I said "his blood mages" not blood mages in general. My mage hawk is almost always a blood mage. Blood mage and evil mage are two very different things. Knowing blood spells doesn't mean you are going to turn into an evil despot any more than owning a sword makes you a mass murderer. It's when you start sucking the life out of people, killing women that look like your dead wife, forcing demons into unwilling hosts, and talking about "We should rule you all" that a mage must be put down. If you get in the way of a person who believes they are a holy warrior on a mission from the maker, it's not going to turn out well.

As Irving said in DA:O, assuming you told him about the escape plan, "If you want to survive, you must learn the rules." Rule one about being a blood mage, You don't use blood magic infront of a Templar. You can't tell a blood mage for an ordinary mage by looking at them. If you try to stop a Templar by using blood spells, you will be outed and the next set of Templars will be aiming for you. Best to hide, wait for an opening, steal the armor off a dead Templar, sneak off to the harbor and ditch the armor then hideout at the haned man OR skip the hiding and armor part, escape through the tunnels under the gallows, and ditch the robes then hideout in the undercity until the fireworks are over.

If you are a blood mage and you see a Templar, hide the fact you know blood magic. If they see you use blood magic, kill them all quickly ot RUN! They may not be a good choices, but those are your only options aa a blood mage outside of Tevinter.

Modifié par Bardox9, 04 novembre 2013 - 12:53 .

[Lokiwithrope]

For an achievement.

[draken-heart]

In the end, both sides are plain evil, and there SHOULD HAVE been an option to put both idiots in their places. or to evacuate the city and then burn it to the ground (IF you completed the Brotherhood of three or whatever thoe archeologists group name is Achievement).

Modifié par draken-heart, 04 novembre 2013 - 01:17 .

[Ravensword]

General TSAR wrote...

Getting back to the topic.....

Aside from my Hawke's pragmatic goals, I LOVE the Templar Order and Crusaders/ Medieval Holy Warriors in general.

You make the Templar order sound as if it's as impressive the actual order that it is based upon. They seemed little more than glorified prison guards to me whenever they're not hunting down apostate mages.

[In Exile]

[quote]MisterJB wrote...
Morality is subjective and I don't expect you to agree but Hawke is the Champion of Kirkwall. That means Hawke must place the good of the city as a whole above everything else. [/quote]

Even if I agree that Hawke has a moral obligation to Kirkwall as a whole, I can still disagree that your way discharges it. By undermining the rule of law - by giving into the threat of an absolute madwoman to slaughter an opressed minority absent lawful authority and due process - Hawke all but condones a reign of terror. 

Indeed, the culmination of Hawke's actions lead to a military dictatorship where Hawke is made Viscount on the good graces of the templars. 

Absolute distain for the rule of law, for due process, for the principle thaat the guilty are entitled to fair trials and proportionate punishment, all of these principles lead to the creation of a society that's abusive, exploitative and abhorent. 

So to turn your point around, Hawke can only discharge his obligation to Kirkwall, and its living and future citizens, by standing up for the correct principles of politcal liberty against Meredith's tyrrany.

[quote]I find that there is greater morality in killing a hundred to save a thousand than in allowing a thousand to die just because I was unable to kill innocents. [/quote]

But it's not clear that this is actually at stake. The problem with this utilitarian calculus is that it assumes killing [X] will save [X+Y] people. But we don't know that. Often, people have to guess whether killing [X] actually does it. 

Even if I grant your basic principle that in one instance this is true, it could still be the case (and I would argue it is the case) that by justifying the abuse of minorities for the good of majorities you actually perpetrate a system that - in the long run - leads to a great deal more killing and abuse. Much like how Meredith's crackdown - justified on exactly that sort of reasoning - culminates in the entire disaster in Kirkwall. 

And as I discuss above, I can easily turn this around and say that by alllowing a thousand to die, Hawke stands up for the right principles: (i) due process; (ii) fundamental justice; (iii) proportionate punishemnt. 

The Kirkwall Hawke could create by expelling the templars might lead to a renessaice of Western liberal principles. So there - I can make up a utilitarian account for why Meredith needs to get stabbed in the throat. 

[quote]Meredith didn't take a torch and started burning buildings for the fun of it. Obviously, those fires are being provoked by flame spells. There is no reason to believe Hawke encounters every single mage and templar in the city on his/her way to the Gallows so, there are likely other figths happening that we just aren't seeing.[/quote]

There's absolutely no evidence to say Meredith didn't tell her templars to "smoke the mages out" by setting the buildings that they're trying to hide in on fire. 

[quote]Plus, Hawke can't defeat the Templars; Kirkwall is the center of templar power in the east. It doesn't matter how many templars s/he kills, there will always be more coming for the mages who will become Abominations in respose or, at best, use highly destructive spells that are bound to catch civillians. [/quote]

So because the templars are desperate for genocide, we should get it over with quickly, or they'll send more armies to commit genocide? 

[quote]Sword and arrows are much less accident prone. Therefore, logically, the best way to minimize collateral damage is to kill the combatants that are releasing firestorms; which is an actual spell; in the streets of Kirkwall. 
[/quote]

Not at alll. Stress creates abominations. The best way to minimize damage is to prevent abominations, which means not killing mages in the streets. But since Meredith already started that, then the best thing to do is to kill the templars quickly before they can corner mages and turn them into abominations. 

[qupte]No, that wasn't what I meant which should be obvious given the very next phrase I wrote.[/quote]

I know that isn't what you mean. Rephrasing your post in that way is an argumenative technique. 

[quote]Even if Hawke sides with the Circle, the Templars win. Obviously, the mages can't remain in that instance.
What I proposed was an hypothetical scenario where Hawke defeated the Templars. 
[/quote]

I know. It still make sense for the mages to leave rather than be subject to a siege in Kirkwall. That's exactly what the mages do in the rebellion anyway - not stay in cities. 

[quote]Hypotheses based on common human behavior in conjuction with information retrieved from the game differs from fanfiction.[/quote]

It does, but what you're doing is neither. 

[quote]Yeah, that would have pacified the Templars (sarcasm)
[/quote]

Well, they are desperate for genocide. But decapitating their leadership might well put them on the run. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Sometimes I wonder to myself to what extent people on the internet really support the very obviously evil actions in games they (very seriously and meticulously) claim to support.

There's two possibilities. Either they're liars, or they're cowards and incompetents.

There's also this possibility:

You're making a false dichotomy.

Also: You're not defining evil. What is evil?

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 04 novembre 2013 - 01:35 .

[Mr.House]

David7204 wrote...

Sometimes I wonder to myself to what extent people on the internet really support the very obviously evil actions in games they (very seriously and meticulously) claim to support.

There's two possibilities. Either they're liars, or they're cowards and incompetents.

David, can you please not talk about DAII when you have not played it and have no clue what we are even talking of? Go back ot the ME3 forums and go argue about heroism.

Modifié par Mr.House, 04 novembre 2013 - 01:38 .

[Karlone123]

David7204 wrote...

Sometimes I wonder to myself to what extent people on the internet really support the very obviously evil actions in games they (very seriously and meticulously) claim to support.

There's two possibilities. Either they're liars, or they're cowards and incompetents.

No. we're actually psycopathic serial killers who aspire to the likes of Vlad the Impaler and Genghis Khan, and we give irrational reasons to fictional evil scenarios when in a acholic-fueled frenzy.

[bleetman]

Barquiel wrote...

bleetman wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Yes, in my DA2 Varric mentions how many mages survived in the mage ending. He doesn't mention any survivors in the templar ending. That means no mage survived and any prisoners would have either had to have been executed later or made tranquil.

Ignoring the enourmous leap of logic this conclusion requires and that you can literally decide whether to execute or spare several mages who surrender during the Templar segment, on whose order do you suppose this is going to take place? Because Meredith's second in command by that point seems to be Cullen, and unless I've misunderstood his entire character development during DA2 he's not going to order either of those things.

We are told by multiple people including Cullen that the Rite of Annulment requires the execution of all circle mages (DG said that in the case where a mages actually survived the RoA for some reason, they could theoretically be made tranquil instead of executed).   

On the contrary, actually. Not only does Cullen not actually believe the Rite was invoked justly, he clearly has no aspirations to kill every mage in the Circle. So, uhm, no.

Let me put it this way. Regardless of who Hawke supports, Cullen survives, and seems to be in command of what's left of the templars. If he was going to slaughter every mage to the last, why wouldn't he do it in the mage ending anyway? Hawke leaves. There's nothing to stop him trying.

[Karlone123]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I finally did it.

It took me two and a half years to bring myself to side with Meredith at the end of DA2. I've played many Hawkes and made many different decisions, including siding with the templars every single time before the end, and could rationalize almost all of them from the perspective of the Hawke I'd been playing. The one thing I never did, because it just felt evil to me, was to follow Meredith when she invoked the Annulment.

This time I did. I had never watched how this played out on YT, so I didn't know how things would go. Guess what? It was every bit as evil as I imagined it would be.

I mean, yes, I tend towards being pro-mage, but while I don't share the templar position, I understand it. Enough that I can roleplay a templar-friendly Hawke until the end of DA2 with no problem. But going along with this genocidal act, killing a whole Circle for the actions of a few, most of them happening outside a Circle, I feel tainted. I understand the desire to kill Orsino, even before he turns into the Harvester, but you only get that scene where he admits to having known Quentin after the decision about the Annulment has already been made. I find myself unable to let that playthrough exist and I'll reload it and change my decision again.

So here, my question: how can anyone who doesn't play an evil Hawke justify siding with Meredith at the end? I do wish to see the consequences of that in DAI, but I guess I'm glad we'll have the DA Keep and I don't have to play it.

I suppose you could be pro-templar but still draw the line at the Right of the Annulment while still believing Mages are dangerous.

[Dean_the_Young]

Ieldra2 wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...
Prepare for 14 pages of debate going around in circles.

Here's what it comes down to:

1) The templars are more likely to win.

2) Kirkwall's Circle is hopelessly corrupt and we cannot allow these blood mages to go free and wreak havoc.

3) Hawke recognizes s/he needs the support of the templars to become viscount.

I said "without playing an evil Hawke". 1 and 3 are clear-cut evil and 2 violates every principle of justice in such a way that it amounts to the same.

I disagree, and not just because I tend to disagree with people who immediately label others as clear-cut evil without knowing their reasons or rationals. Factor 1 provides a frame of reference in which thep layer's choice doesn't change the outcome, but can increase or lessen the suffering and scope of death. Factor 2 doesn't violate every principle of justice if people's concepts of justice differ from yours. Principle 3 can tie into principle 1 (an unavoidable atrocity) while being an approach for long-term reform.

I wonder how many killed Bethany. If you don't, you're a hypocrite on top of being a genocidal mass-murderer. 

If you don't understand's people's views for why they do it, how can you claim they're being a hypocrite in their views?

Perhaps you should avoid maing yourself the frame of reference of morality and view everyone's actions through the lens of your moral system.

[Iakus]

The only reason I don't side with Meredith more often is because my "canon" Hawke is a rogue with Bethany in the Circle.

I stand with the mages to save her, not these lunatics.

[Giggles_Manically]

I wanted the achievement.

[Iakus]

Karlone123 wrote...

I suppose you could be pro-templar but still draw the line at the Right of the Annulment while still believing Mages are dangerous.

That's actually how I play it.

[Hazegurl]

Bardox9 wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

Bardox9 wrote...

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

The problem is that Meredith doesn't want Orsino's help and she also won't let the nobilty pick a new vicount and that is not her job.

By the end at the finale choice of templar of mage, both of them are completely unreasonable. Act 1 Meredith was willing (reluctant but willing) to have worked with Orsino, but he refused to aid her. In act 2 Orsino was actively blocked her attempts to root out the blood mages, but she had not given up hope on all of them. By Act 3 she is warped and twist and paranoid beyond all reason after seeing for years now blood mage after blood mage and demon after demon pour out from the circle. Orsino did not help her before and, in her state of mind at the end, it was clear to her he never would.

Orsino's incompetence is the cause of the chaos that has lead to the reawakening of the Inquisition. Had he simply done his job, all of the mage VS templar maddness could have been avoided. One weak minded mage has lead the world to the edge of ruin.

I agree, However If she was just as ruthless in rooting out corrupt Templars as she was about mages then things also wouldn't have gone so far. Both are responsible for the corruption within the Circle but Orsino chose to burn his Olive branches when extended and we find out after the RoA for his reasons why. He too was a blood mage. He really had some nerve to pretend as though Meredith was just a basketcase throwing around false accusations.   

True that some of the Templars under Mereidths command did not deserve to be in the order and should have been booted out, but there aren't exactly long lines outside to refill the ranks. You don't have to be a blood mage, or just a mage in general, to be corrupt. And any mage can learn blood magic, doesn't make them evil. Just as with warriors and rogues, just because you learn the sword doesn't mean you will go out and start murding people in the streets.

I agree, However being a blood mage is forbidden so any mage who dabbles in it knows the consequences for their actions and should face it. You can't create laws then allow people to break it without punishment.

[Karlone123]

iakus wrote...

Karlone123 wrote...

I suppose you could be pro-templar but still draw the line at the Right of the Annulment while still believing Mages are dangerous.

That's actually how I play it.

And it's fun way to play, making it feel more dramatic too.

[draken-heart]

I will actually answer the OP:

The idea is simple. You have two choices. FREEDOM!!! Through violence or diplomatic solution. Hawke can even tell Anders, who wants a revolution, that you can solve the problem peacefully, and hope to get what you want with needless bloodshed. Choosing either side is needless bloodshed.

But...:
Siding with the Templars should have aided with the diplomacy in the long run if a certain ex-warden did not becom the head of the ENTIRE Circle in Andrastian Thedas.