538 réponses à ce sujet

[Boycott Bioware]

Meredith calling Right of Annulment is unjustified, the Kirkwal Circle have nothing to do with Anders, and Anders have nothing to do with Kirkwal Circle

Secondly,the Right of Annulment itself is evil, who give them the "right" anyway?

Thirdly, the one who blow up the Chantry is in front of her, instead of apprehending Anders, she call for killing other peoples who have nothing to do with it.

It is like War on Terror

[draken-heart]

Qistina wrote...

Meredith calling Right of Annulment is unjustified, the Kirkwal Circle have nothing to do with Anders, and Anders have nothing to do with Kirkwal Circle

Secondly,the Right of Annulment itself is evil, who give them the "right" anyway?

Thirdly, the one who blow up the Chantry is in front of her, instead of apprehending Anders, she call for killing other peoples who have nothing to do with it.

It is like War on Terror

perhaps, but this is a short-term vs long-term debate. And you do not even support Meredit or Mages. People like the OP make it seem that way, yet evidence IN-GAME even point out that a Hawke siding with the Templars/"Meredith" can actually go against Meredith. And I only notice the mage "survival" for the mages because the Circle "Survived" more or less. And the Circle is "destroyed" in the Templar one.

I still attest that the city should have been burned to the ground, and not used.

Modifié par draken-heart, 04 novembre 2013 - 02:22 .

[SirGladiator]

iakus wrote...

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.

You can still save Bethany even if you side with Meredith, she's safe until after you kill Orsino, then you can just tell Meredith not to hurt Bethany, and she doesn't, so Bethany is fine.

I too never sided with Meredith until recently, just for the sake of seeing what happens if you do.  I always sided against her on principle, she has no right to declare the Right of Annullment, only her superiors do.  Just because one of her superiors is dead doesn't change that.  It's an illegal order, it's nothing more than any other random person saying 'kill these people because I say so', there's no authority there, legal or moral.  If she had followed proper procedures, like Gregoir did in DAO (in a much more chaotic situation where clearly if there were EVER any way a templar leader could declare it on his own, he clearly would have and it would've been reasonable, but he made clear that they can't) , and her superiors had granted her request for the ROA, it would've been a tough choice, because it would've been such a clearly bad decision (which is why she didn't send for the ROA, she wouldn't have gotten it, everybody knew the person responsible wasn't even part of the circle and they would've denied her request, so she simply pretended she had the authority to invoke it herself) .  But Meredith was simply crazy and lawless, you can't side with somebody like that.  Of course the other side was indeed just as bad, just better at hiding it, but for the sake of the mages who actually were innocent, that she's trying to simply murder, I always sided against her.  Ironicly, her intentions were much better than Orsino's, if that red lyrium idol hadn't made her go crazy she would've been the 'good guy' and Orsino the 'bad guy', and I'd probably end up siding with her (not on an ROA, if she weren't crazy she wouldn't be trying to invoke an ROA she has no authority to invoke, if she were still sane she'd have simply had Anders killed, then sent the templars in to do a thourough investigation and find out which ones were blood mages and which ones weren't, dealt with the blood mages properly and left the innocent ones alone) but since it did they both ended up being bad, crazy people.  Hopefully in DAI the templars and mages we meet will be mostly sane instead of mostly crazy/evil.

[draken-heart]

SirGladiator wrote...

iakus wrote...

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.

You can still save Bethany even if you side with Meredith, she's safe until after you kill Orsino, then you can just tell Meredith not to hurt Bethany, and she doesn't, so Bethany is fine.

I too never sided with Meredith until recently, just for the sake of seeing what happens if you do.  I always sided against her on principle, she has no right to declare the Right of Annullment, only her superiors do.  Just because one of her superiors is dead doesn't change that.  It's an illegal order, it's nothing more than any other random person saying 'kill these people because I say so', there's no authority there, legal or moral.  If she had followed proper procedures, like Gregoir did in DAO (in a much more chaotic situation where clearly if there were EVER any way a templar leader could declare it on his own, he clearly would have and it would've been reasonable, but he made clear that they can't) , and her superiors had granted her request for the ROA, it would've been a tough choice, because it would've been such a clearly bad decision (which is why she didn't send for the ROA, she wouldn't have gotten it, everybody knew the person responsible wasn't even part of the circle and they would've denied her request, so she simply pretended she had the authority to invoke it herself) .  But Meredith was simply crazy and lawless, you can't side with somebody like that.  Of course the other side was indeed just as bad, just better at hiding it, but for the sake of the mages who actually were innocent, that she's trying to simply murder, I always sided against her.  Ironicly, her intentions were much better than Orsino's, if that red lyrium idol hadn't made her go crazy she would've been the 'good guy' and Orsino the 'bad guy', and I'd probably end up siding with her (not on an ROA, if she weren't crazy she wouldn't be trying to invoke an ROA she has no authority to invoke, if she were still sane she'd have simply had Anders killed, then sent the templars in to do a thourough investigation and find out which ones were blood mages and which ones weren't, dealt with the blood mages properly and left the innocent ones alone) but since it did they both ended up being bad, crazy people.  Hopefully in DAI the templars and mages we meet will be mostly sane instead of mostly crazy/evil.

good point. But in the end, it is a choice of two crazies, who in the end both get executed, and life (potentially) goes on as normal.

[bleetman]

Qistina wrote...

Secondly,the Right of Annulment itself is evil, who give them the "right" anyway?

The thing you've got to bear in mind is that the right of annulment is - at least in theory - a last resort. An ultimate failsafe. Something to invoke against a Circle that is beyond all hope of recovery. I'd suppose that the situation we're presented during DAO is the type of circumstance it's designed for, though the circumstances in which it's typically invoked aren't something I believe are ever explained, other than that it's happened 17 times over the last 700~ years.

It's not unreasonable that such a thing might exist, as unfortunate as the consequences are. It's more accurate to say that abuse of the right is evil.

Modifié par bleetman, 04 novembre 2013 - 02:36 .

[Urshakk]

I sided with her once, on a playthrough where my Hawke hated magic. He was not an evil hawke (I played him full sarcastic and greedy) but he was cautious of magic, and as he met crazy blood mage after blood mage he began to despise it. His mother dying to one was the final nail in the coffin. So he was pretty anti-magic and always supported the Templars. Right until Meridith started to threaten killing Bethany, that's where he drew the line. She may be a mage, but she was still family and a good person. He would do anything to protect her from resorting to blood magic.

Turned out to be more intriguing then I thought it would be, telling Bethany that was Orsino supported the mage who was behind Mother's death. I also got to talk to Meredith a lot more in Act 3 then if I had sided with the mages. She even told my Hawke a very interesting story about why she began to be anti-magic. It was actually pretty cool to find out more about her and why she has those beliefs. That's how I roleplayed it anyway that one time, my 2 cents.

Modifié par Urshakk, 04 novembre 2013 - 02:41 .

[Star fury]

Providing a motivation for templar support, biower should've done better than to make every damn mage a blood mage(even first enchanter).

[Ieldra]

Urshakk wrote...

I sided with her once, on a playthrough where my Hawke hated magic. He was not an evil hawke (I played him full sarcastic and greedy) but he was cautious of magic, and as he met crazy blood mage after blood mage he began to despise it. His mother dying to one was the final nail in the coffin. So he was pretty anti-magic and always supported the Templars. Right until Meridith started to threaten killing Bethany, that's where he drew the line. She may be a mage, but she was still family and a good person. He would do anything to protect her from resorting to blood magic.

Turned out to be more intriguing then I thought it would be, telling Bethany that was Orsino supported the mage who was behind Mother's death. I also got to talk to Meredith a lot more in Act 3 then if I had sided with the mages. She even told my Hawke a very interesting story about why she began to be anti-magic. It was actually pretty cool to find out more about her and why she has those beliefs. That's how I roleplayed it anyway that one time, my 2 cents.

I don't have a problem with being pro-templar or anti-magic in general. The story gives us enough reasons to be, both big-picture and personal ones. Also yes, the scene with Orsino was appropriate (not that we didn't suspect this before, right?).

The single problem is calling for the Annulment in the specific situation we find ourselves in. The Circle had nothing to do with Anders' attack, and the Circle, that's where all those mages reside who didn't rise up, call up demons or whatever. The ROA is problematic in the first place, but this is a clear-cut case of its not being justified. Compare this with the scenario in DAO, where you search the Circle and apart from a handful of survivors, find nothing but abominations, and make your decision then. I don't usually side with templars there as well, since if I can save the Circle then I find no reason not to, but you can roleplay that you can't save the First Enchanter and the other mages at the top of the Circle Tower, then the ROA as the last-resort measure follows automatically - and that makes sense. You can't tweak the situation in DA2 so that it makes sense.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 novembre 2013 - 08:45 .

[Jedimaster88]

Orsino tries to reason with Meredith at the gallows before the battle begins.

"Revoke the right of annulment before it goes too far. Search the tower, imprison us if you have to, I will even help you. But do not kill us all for an act we did not commit".

I dont remember if it was exactly like that but it was at least something like that.

She should have just accepted it. Plus I always kill anders so the REAL person responsible for Elthina´s death is already dead. Wish my Hawke could say that to her. No need to start mass killings.

[Bardox9]

Jedimaster88 wrote...

Orsino tries to reason with Meredith at the gallows before the battle begins.

"Revoke the right of annulment before it goes too far. Search the tower, imprison us if you have to, I will even help you. But do not kill us all for an act we did not commit".

I dont remember if it was exactly like that but it was at least something like that.

She should have just accepted it. Plus I always kill anders so the REAL person responsible for Elthina´s death is already dead. Wish my Hawke could say that to her. No need to start mass killings.

A combination of the idols influence and Orsinos constant resistance had pushed Merediths paranoia to the breaking point. When Anders destroyed the Chantry you could see on her face that the flood gates had opened. The time of reason had passed. Had Orsino been so accommodating in the 6 years prior to the chantry being blown up, it would have been different. Too little too late.

At the beginning of act 3 Orsino says "When will you stop seeing evil in every corner?" And she says "When it is no longer there." That was not paranoia. The evil WAS there and Orsino was protecting it. In doing so he was aiding the very corruption he was suppose to be training his students to defend against. He failed his students on a massive scale. His incompetence as First Enchanter is what pushed matters so far.

Despite my choosing Templar over Mage in "The Last Straw" I am no fan of Meredith. She was a tyrant, but she was fighting to stop a tide of evil mages and demons from pouring out of the Gallows. Orsino fought her at every turn. You can't do that for six years then cry uncle when the blade comes down on your neck.

[draken-heart]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Urshakk wrote...

I sided with her once, on a playthrough where my Hawke hated magic. He was not an evil hawke (I played him full sarcastic and greedy) but he was cautious of magic, and as he met crazy blood mage after blood mage he began to despise it. His mother dying to one was the final nail in the coffin. So he was pretty anti-magic and always supported the Templars. Right until Meridith started to threaten killing Bethany, that's where he drew the line. She may be a mage, but she was still family and a good person. He would do anything to protect her from resorting to blood magic.

Turned out to be more intriguing then I thought it would be, telling Bethany that was Orsino supported the mage who was behind Mother's death. I also got to talk to Meredith a lot more in Act 3 then if I had sided with the mages. She even told my Hawke a very interesting story about why she began to be anti-magic. It was actually pretty cool to find out more about her and why she has those beliefs. That's how I roleplayed it anyway that one time, my 2 cents.

I don't have a problem with being pro-templar or anti-magic in general. The story gives us enough reasons to be, both big-picture and personal ones. Also yes, the scene with Orsino was appropriate (not that we didn't suspect this before, right?).

The single problem is calling for the Annulment in the specific situation we find ourselves in. The Circle had nothing to do with Anders' attack, and the Circle, that's where all those mages reside who didn't rise up, call up demons or whatever. The ROA is problematic in the first place, but this is a clear-cut case of its not being justified. Compare this with the scenario in DAO, where you search the Circle and apart from a handful of survivors, find nothing but abominations, and make your decision then. I don't usually side with templars there as well, since if I can save the Circle then I find no reason not to, but you can roleplay that you can't save the First Enchanter and the other mages at the top of the Circle Tower, then the ROA as the last-resort measure follows automatically - and that makes sense. You can't tweak the situation in DA2 so that it makes sense.

But siding with the mages means killing innocent templars whose only crime is following a madwoman because they are too afraid to speak out against her.

Plus

Spoiler

Meredit dies, which voids the RoA anyways.

Modifié par draken-heart, 04 novembre 2013 - 10:50 .

[Ieldra]

You're sarcastic, right?

In case you're not: they chose their job, and it's a fighting job at least occasionally. I have no more concern for them than for soldiers on the enemy's side in a war. Also, the templars are the attackers, the mages just defend themselves. Why should I be concerned with the fate of some templar too cowardly to refuse an illegal and immoral order?

[draken-heart]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You're sarcastic, right?

In case you're not: they chose their job, and it's a fighting job at least occasionally. I have no more concern for them than for soldiers on the enemy's side in a war. Also, the templars are the attackers, the mages just defend themselves. Why should I be concerned with the fate of some templar too cowardly to refuse an illegal and immoral order?

You fight a lot of them, but how many truly thought that it was a good idea. even CULLEN, the second in command expresses doubt, and sides with you, showing that not all of them are heartless demons who prey on "Innocent" mages.

Plus, Kirkwall was a place where demons and abominations ran amok. Seeing that, how can I guarantee that the mages are not going to slaughter the innocent civies?

Modifié par draken-heart, 06 novembre 2013 - 01:41 .

[Ieldra]

draken-heart wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

You're sarcastic, right?

In case you're not: they chose their job, and it's a fighting job at least occasionally. I have no more concern for them than for soldiers on the enemy's side in a war. Also, the templars are the attackers, the mages just defend themselves. Why should I be concerned with the fate of some templar too cowardly to refuse an illegal and immoral order?

You fight a lot of them, but how many truly thought that it was a good idea. even CULLEN, the second in command expresses doubt, and sides with you, showing that not all of them are heartless demons who prey on "Innocent" mages.

I'm not fighting them for what they're thinking. I'm fighting them for what they're doing. If those skeptics let their actions follow their thoughts then they'll stop attacking, and I'll have no reason to cut them down. Should some of those who really are "heartness demons" stop fighting for some reason, I'll spare them, too. Again you forget that the templars are the attackers here.

Plus, Kirkwall was a place where demons and abominations ran amok. Seeing that, how can I guarantee that the mages are not going to slaughter the innocent civies?

I'm always astonished how people don't realize how stupid it is to ask for guarantees. Why don't we ask our police to guarantee that there aren't any more murders? Because they can't without turning us all into mind-controlled slaves, or kill us. As long as people are people and not mind-controlled slaves or dead, you'll never be able to guarantee anything. When I make the decision, I must assume that Meredith will survive if I side with the templars. How could I guarantee that she won't continue to search the city for blood mages, killing all those she suspects? I can never predict what others will do, but I can control how I act and react.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 novembre 2013 - 08:06 .

[draken-heart]

Ieldra2 wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

You're sarcastic, right?

In case you're not: they chose their job, and it's a fighting job at least occasionally. I have no more concern for them than for soldiers on the enemy's side in a war. Also, the templars are the attackers, the mages just defend themselves. Why should I be concerned with the fate of some templar too cowardly to refuse an illegal and immoral order?

You fight a lot of them, but how many truly thought that it was a good idea. even CULLEN, the second in command expresses doubt, and sides with you, showing that not all of them are heartless demons who prey on "Innocent" mages.

I'm not fighting them for what they're thinking. I'm fighting them for what they're doing. If those skeptics let their actions follow their thoughts then they'll stop attacking, and I'll have no reason to cut them down. Should some of those who really are "heartness demons" stop fighting for some reason, I'll spare them, too. Again you forget that the templars are the attackers here.

Plus, Kirkwall was a place where demons and abominations ran amok. Seeing that, how can I guarantee that the mages are not going to slaughter the innocent civies?

I'm always astonished how people don't realize how stupid it is to ask for guarantees. Why don't we ask our police to guarantee that there aren't any more murders? Because they can't without turning us all into mind-controlled slaves, or kill us. As long as people are people and not mind-controlled slaves or dead, you'll never be able to guarantee anything. When I make the decision, I must assume that Meredith will survive if I side with the templars. How could I guarantee that she won't continue to search the city for blood mages, killing all those she suspects? I can never predict what others will do, but I can control how I act and react.

1) IF you have a paranoid brat like Meredith in charge of you, would you even bother trying to voice your opinion? I know I would not.

2) As stated before, you can go against meredith at every turn and still "Fight the innocent" mages. The end choice is not Meredith or Orsino, it is Mages or Templars. play the game and try it completionist, and you will find it very hard to side with the mages knowing what MAGIC can do to ANY mage.

In the end, I side with the templars on a rogue/warrior Hawke who tries to simply protect the citizens of Kirkwall firs and antagonize Meredith at every turn. Bethany is usually a warden, because even though she does not like it, it saves her from what happens at endgame.

Modifié par draken-heart, 06 novembre 2013 - 06:47 .

[Xilizhra]

In the end, I side with the templars on a rogue/warrior Hawke who tries to simply protect the citizens of Kirkwall firs and antagonize Meredith at every turn. Bethany is usually a warden, because even though she does not like it, it saves her from what happens at endgame.

Ah, just to betray the citizens of Kirkwall at the end, then.

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

In the end, I side with the templars on a rogue/warrior Hawke who tries to simply protect the citizens of Kirkwall firs and antagonize Meredith at every turn. Bethany is usually a warden, because even though she does not like it, it saves her from what happens at endgame.

Ah, just to betray the citizens of Kirkwall at the end, then.

What? The mages "may be" citizens, but I was talking about the mundane ones, and I am sure Cullen (Who wouls take over for Meredith) will not go kookoo.

[Bardox9]

I got the impression that Cullen had matured greatly from the events in DA:O. The guy would make a rock solid Knight Commander. He had a good teacher. Gregior is the model Knight Commander IMO. He and First Enchater Irving were not friends by any means, but they had a synergistic professional relationship. With that pair as a model to build on, and seeing the Meredith/Orsino cluster f**k, I think Cullen would be a firm and fair Knight Commander.

[sylvanaerie]

Ryzaki wrote...

Eh you don't have to be pro-templar to side with Meredith. One of my snarky mage Hawkes was pro himself.

Of course the option he really would've took was "Get the hell out of here" but alas BW made him take stupid pills. A side with Aveline and the Guard option and saving civilians would've also been nice and STILL would've fit with the whole Champion who saved us all thing. Maybe he/she gets in fights with templars and that's why Cassandra thinks he/she sided with the mages. *shrug* 

Alas we side with dumb or dumber.

This would have been a good "neutral option".  The entire idea of a Hawke who just tells Meredith and Orsino to "go screw yourselves, I'm not getting involved" (while understandable) isn't very 'heroic', but this option would have been a nice compromise for those still trying to help the innocent citizens of Kirkwall.

It took me at least a half dozen attempts before I finally sided with the templars.  On the two playthroughs I sided with Meredith (out of more than a dozen games), I did so ONLY to see how Templar Carver and Circle Mage Bethany respond to my protagonist/the situation. Meredith is nuts, clearly so, champing at the bit for the RoA, would have most likely called it eventually even without Anders' provocation.  In both instances, my Hawke's were trying to avoid further bloodshed getting the mage rebellion (that IS how it's presented as in the game) quelled.  And spared the surrendering mages and wouldn't let Meredith kill Bethany.  Frankly, it is pretty sad that with the dialogues you get this route, the ending makes 100% more freaking sense instead of Orsino going all 'harvester' on you out of the freaking left field.  You also get more of an explanation from him about Quentin.

This isn't a "wait till you get confirmation from the Chantry" situation.  From my Hawke's PoV this wasn't even a 'choose to side with Meredith' thing.  There is no Elthina to pull Meredith back from her path.  People are going to die, the Rite is going to happen anyway.  Many mages will perish in the Rite anyway, even if Hawke does side mages, there is going to be a LOT of collateral damage to the citizens of Kirkwall, mage, templar and innocent bystanders alike.  A templar siding Hawke may choose to do so to limit casualties and restore order vs saving a few innocent mages.  Not an optimal choice, but it IS a viable viewpoint.  At least that's what I used when I did it.  Others may have other viewpoints on the subject.

I was more upset with Anders' actions. than Meredith's or Orsino's, using Hawke as an accessory to mass murder on the pretext of 'helping him'.  At least siding mages or templars it's Hawke's CHOICE, not one forced upon him by someone else just dragging him along.  It may not be a GREAT choice but it's still a choice, and considering the body count most Hawke's have racked up by this time and STILL be a 'good' person, he doesn't have to be evil to make it.  Men can do 'evil' acts and still not consider themselves evil.  Magneto in Xmen:First Class is a good example of a person pushed too far who makes a choice, not a necessarily GOOD one, or even (at this point) an 'evil' one (referring to his solution to Sebastian Shaw), but it is an UNDERSTANDABLE one, falling into a shade of 'gray' that is wholly human and relatable.  DA2 had a lot of options that from varying viewpoints can be seen as 'shades of gray'.  Even Anders' actions, if you consider him as pushed against a wall so many times he sees no other way out.

To the OP: If you view (because of your beliefs) siding with the templars (for any reason) as evil, that's a valid viewpoint.  Just recognize others may differ--and still be valid AND considered 'good'.

Glad Inquisition will have the Keep though.  I've lost most of my game saves to a computer reformat and have no desire to replay through this scenario again.

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 07 novembre 2013 - 01:07 .

[sylvanaerie]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You're sarcastic, right?

In case you're not: they chose their job, and it's a fighting job at least occasionally. I have no more concern for them than for soldiers on the enemy's side in a war. Also, the templars are the attackers, the mages just defend themselves. Why should I be concerned with the fate of some templar too cowardly to refuse an illegal and immoral order?

Tell that to Alistair.  Not all Templars are there because they CHOSE that life.  A lot are given to the Chantry as babies, indoctrinated to fear/hate mages all their lives (or from a young child) and then addicted to Lyrium, being told it 'enhances their abilities', so even those that 'concientiously object' (like Samson) face withdrawal which is no freaking picnic.  And those few templars who do stick their necks out to actively help mages--like Thrask--end up betrayed and backstabbed by the very ones he's trying to help. 

It takes great strength of body and will to resist the indoctrination of a lifetime.  One of the reasons I admire Cullen's character development so much.

I don't agree with the templar viewpoint, but I can certainly sympathize with it.  Even the roots of Meredith's hatred/fear of mages has its basis in a harsh reality, that has nothing to do with the Circle's percentage of blood mages/abominations.

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 07 novembre 2013 - 12:54 .

[Xilizhra]

This would have been a good "neutral option". The entire idea of a Hawke who just tells Meredith and Orsino to "go screw yourselves, I'm not getting involved" (while understandable) isn't very 'heroic', but this option would have been a nice compromise for those still trying to help the innocent citizens of Kirkwall.

Oh, Hawke can say just that. Meredith responds by saying she'll kill you anyway if you do, and that you have to choose a side.

It may not be a GREAT choice but it's still a choice, and considering the body count most Hawke's have racked up by this time and STILL be a 'good' person, he doesn't have to be evil to make it.

There's no way to work around genocide like that.

Tell that to Alistair. Not all Templars are there because they CHOSE that life. A lot are given to the Chantry as babies, indoctrinated to fear/hate mages all their lives (or from a young child) and then addicted to Lyrium, being told it 'enhances their abilities', so even those that 'concientiously object' (like Samson) face withdrawal which is no freaking picnic. And those few templars who do stick their necks out to actively help mages--like Thrask--end up betrayed and backstabbed by the very ones he's trying to help.

Not Keran, or Evangeline.

[sylvanaerie]

Xilizhra wrote...

This would have been a good "neutral option". The entire idea of a Hawke who just tells Meredith and Orsino to "go screw yourselves, I'm not getting involved" (while understandable) isn't very 'heroic', but this option would have been a nice compromise for those still trying to help the innocent citizens of Kirkwall.

Oh, Hawke can say just that. Meredith responds by saying she'll kill you anyway if you do, and that you have to choose a side.

It may not be a GREAT choice but it's still a choice, and considering the body count most Hawke's have racked up by this time and STILL be a 'good' person, he doesn't have to be evil to make it.

There's no way to work around genocide like that.

Tell that to Alistair. Not all Templars are there because they CHOSE that life. A lot are given to the Chantry as babies, indoctrinated to fear/hate mages all their lives (or from a young child) and then addicted to Lyrium, being told it 'enhances their abilities', so even those that 'concientiously object' (like Samson) face withdrawal which is no freaking picnic. And those few templars who do stick their necks out to actively help mages--like Thrask--end up betrayed and backstabbed by the very ones he's trying to help.

Not Keran, or Evangeline.

For point 1) I was referring to the idea of a Hawke who chooses not to side with either templars or mages, but the city guard to protect the innocent bystanders outside the conflict who would be harmed.

For point 2) It isn't 'genocide' no more than Anders' attack on the Chantry can be viewed as 'genocide' since neither is decimating an entire population (See Holocaust for a more accurate description of the word).  A few mages in a building is hardly 'genocide'.  It is NOT every mage in the Free Marches.  Just Kirkwall.  Mass murder perhaps.  Genocide, no.

And as for point 3) It is part of game lore that many templars are NOT templars by choice, but the children who were given to the chantry for this.  For whatever reasons.  Some may be volunteers.  Many are NOT.  I know who Keran is, and never met Evangeline in Kirkwall.

Point 4) I refuse to get into a debate with you, Xilizhra.  You have proven to be so rigidly set in your viewpoints that you scare me.

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 07 novembre 2013 - 02:01 .

[Xilizhra]

For point 1) I was referring to the idea of a Hawke who chooses not to side with either templars or mages, but the city guard to protect the innocent bystanders outside the conflict who would be harmed.

Yes. Meredith will flag them as enemies too.

For point 2) It isn't 'genocide' no more than Anders' attack on the Chantry can be viewed as 'genocide' since neither is decimating an entire population (See Holocaust for a more accurate description of the word). A few mages in a building is hardly 'genocide'. It is NOT every mage in the Free Marches. Just Kirkwall. Mass murder perhaps. Genocide, no.

Kirkwall is a city-state in and of itself, and it's obliteration of all of a biological grouping within said state. The Free Marches isn't a nation, it's a region of multiple ones.

And as for point 3) It is part of game lore that many templars are NOT templars by choice, but the children who were given to the chantry for this. For whatever reasons. Some may be volunteers. Many are NOT. I know who Keran is, and never met Evangeline in Kirkwall.

Noted. There are some who are there involuntarily, it's true. They have the same choice as all templars do if they meet me in combat: surrender or die. I may sympathize with their circumstances, but it doesn't make them not the enemy.

Point 4) I refuse to get into a debate with you, Xilizhra. You have proven to be so rigidly set in your viewpoints that you scare me.

Er, why?

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

For point 1) I was referring to the idea of a Hawke who chooses not to side with either templars or mages, but the city guard to protect the innocent bystanders outside the conflict who would be harmed.

Yes. Meredith will flag them as enemies too.

For point 2) It isn't 'genocide' no more than Anders' attack on the Chantry can be viewed as 'genocide' since neither is decimating an entire population (See Holocaust for a more accurate description of the word). A few mages in a building is hardly 'genocide'. It is NOT every mage in the Free Marches. Just Kirkwall. Mass murder perhaps. Genocide, no.

Kirkwall is a city-state in and of itself, and it's obliteration of all of a biological grouping within said state. The Free Marches isn't a nation, it's a region of multiple ones.

And as for point 3) It is part of game lore that many templars are NOT templars by choice, but the children who were given to the chantry for this. For whatever reasons. Some may be volunteers. Many are NOT. I know who Keran is, and never met Evangeline in Kirkwall.

Noted. There are some who are there involuntarily, it's true. They have the same choice as all templars do if they meet me in combat: surrender or die. I may sympathize with their circumstances, but it doesn't make them not the enemy.

Point 4) I refuse to get into a debate with you, Xilizhra. You have proven to be so rigidly set in your viewpoints that you scare me.

Er, why?

Interesting view, considering that Hawke's mother DIES becaus of a MAGE. All the templars want is to make a world safe for their families and friends, mostly by keeping both mages and mundanes from each other.

Large amount of Normal folk>a handful of mages.

[Xilizhra]

Interesting view, considering that Hawke's mother DIES becaus of a MAGE. All the templars want is to make a world safe for their families and friends, mostly by keeping both mages and mundanes from each other.

She dies because of a psycho whose means of murder aren't all that different from numerous nonmagic serial killers in our own world. All he did with magic was perform a head transplant onto a corpse, and that didn't even lead to anything substantial. And if the templars ever wanted it, they don't anymore.