538 réponses à ce sujet

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

You do realize that the RoA begins AND ends with Meredith, not the Templars. The no mention of survivors might be that they moved the mages away from kirkwall or they turned into abominations and got killed.

Once again what is the lives of a handful of mages compared to near-guaranteed safety of the entirety of Kirkwall's non-mages?

[Xilizhra]

draken-heart wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

You do realize that the RoA begins AND ends with Meredith, not the Templars. The no mention of survivors might be that they moved the mages away from kirkwall or they turned into abominations and got killed.

Once again what is the lives of a handful of mages compared to near-guaranteed safety of the entirety of Kirkwall's non-mages?

Gaider stated specifically that the other mages would be made Tranquil after it was over. Additionally, Hawke fights all the same threats to nonmage innocents in the mage ending as in the templar one.

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

You do realize that the RoA begins AND ends with Meredith, not the Templars. The no mention of survivors might be that they moved the mages away from kirkwall or they turned into abominations and got killed.

Once again what is the lives of a handful of mages compared to near-guaranteed safety of the entirety of Kirkwall's non-mages?

Gaider stated specifically that the other mages would be made Tranquil after it was over. Additionally, Hawke fights all the same threats to nonmage innocents in the mage ending as in the templar one.

I think the Ending is not meant to be taken literally. IT is a story within a story so the events "happen" They just have a deeper meaning to them, like Freedom to do whatever (Mages) or peace and security (Templars) Being more improtant.

Modifié par draken-heart, 09 novembre 2013 - 07:04 .

[Xilizhra]

Ah, so you're now realizing that you lack support for your statements and now want to rationalize everything as an obtuse metaphor? If we go that way, I have equal grounds for saying that the entire templar ending is just chaining oneself to insanity because the prospect of freedom from one's own neuroses is too frightening.

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ah, so you're now realizing that you lack support for your statements and now want to rationalize everything as an obtuse metaphor? If we go that way, I have equal grounds for saying that the entire templar ending is just chaining oneself to insanity because the prospect of freedom from one's own neuroses is too frightening.

That is how I view the story. There is a lot of evidence to see that the "common man" will not see one apostate as responsible, but Magic in general. Is their guaranteed safety from mages Like Anders less important than the freedom of a few handful of mages who are living in crazy town?

Modifié par draken-heart, 10 novembre 2013 - 04:14 .

[Xilizhra]

draken-heart wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ah, so you're now realizing that you lack support for your statements and now want to rationalize everything as an obtuse metaphor? If we go that way, I have equal grounds for saying that the entire templar ending is just chaining oneself to insanity because the prospect of freedom from one's own neuroses is too frightening.

That is how I view the story. There is a lot of evidence to see that the "common man" will not see one apostate as responsible, but Magic in general. Is their guaranteed safety from mages Like Anders less important than the freedom of a few handful of mages who are living in crazy town?

There is no guaranteed safety either way. Only demons which both sides fight, and templars murdering the innocent.

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ah, so you're now realizing that you lack support for your statements and now want to rationalize everything as an obtuse metaphor? If we go that way, I have equal grounds for saying that the entire templar ending is just chaining oneself to insanity because the prospect of freedom from one's own neuroses is too frightening.

That is how I view the story. There is a lot of evidence to see that the "common man" will not see one apostate as responsible, but Magic in general. Is their guaranteed safety from mages Like Anders less important than the freedom of a few handful of mages who are living in crazy town?

There is no guaranteed safety either way. Only demons which both sides fight, and templars murdering the innocent.

And mages are the only only innocent? Never knew that ALL Templars had a heart of evil and only wait for a crazy Knight Commander to call a RoA so they can slaughter the only innocents in the universe.

I bet you that the Templars you kill defending the "innocent" mages are just as innocent. Do you know why the Tmeplars attack the mages? I think it had something to do with fear of Meredith.

Modifié par draken-heart, 10 novembre 2013 - 05:03 .

[Bardox9]

In the case of Kirkwall, we see evil pouring out of the Circle over the course of seven years. Meredith trying to find and stop it and Orsino constantly getting in her way. The reason Meredith sees evil in every corner of the gallows is not because she is paranoid. She sees evil in every shadow, beacuse it's there. And Orsino is protecting it.

Orsino is completely inept when it comes to being First Enchanter. He should have been replaced years before Act 3. Meredith isn't much better. She fills her ranks with bigots and sadists. The Grand Cleric sits on her hands hoping the Maker will come down from where ever and fix everything for her.

Kirkwall is completely screwed up, but when it comes to Last Straw... as Hawke said "He[Templar] is a better bet than a demon." Something that , after 7 years of fighting blood mage after blood mage and demon after demon and abomination after abomination flowing out of the Gallows, we can all agree on.

Modifié par Bardox9, 10 novembre 2013 - 04:58 .

[draken-heart]

Bardox9 wrote...

In the case of Kirkwall, we see evil pouring out of the Circle over the course of seven years. Meredith trying to find and stop it and Orsino constantly getting in her way. The reason Meredith sees evil in every corner of the gallows is not because she is paranoid. She sees evil in every shadow, beacuse it's there. And Orsino is protecting it.

Orsino is completely inept when it comes to being First Enchanter. He should have been replaced years before Act 3. Meredith isn't much better. She fills her ranks with bigots and sadists. The Grand Cleric sits on her hands hoping the Maker will come down from where ever and fix everything for her.

Kirkwall is completely screwed up, but when it comes to Last Straw... as Hawke said "He[Templar] is a better bet than a demon." Something that , after 7 years of fighting blood mage after blood mage and demon after demon and abomination after abomination flowing out of the Gallows, we can all agree on.

Except that Kirkwall Circle=100% Pure innocent and Templars=100% Pure evil thanks to Meredith being crazy and Orsino "helping" the Circle hide it's blood mages.

[Xilizhra]

And mages are the only only innocent? Never knew that ALL Templars had a heart of evil and only wait for a crazy Knight Commander to call a RoA so they can slaughter the only innocents in the universe.

Templars are all combatants, and all the ones participating in the Annulment are willing to commit genocide.

In the case of Kirkwall, we see evil pouring out of the Circle over the course of seven years. Meredith trying to find and stop it and Orsino constantly getting in her way. The reason Meredith sees evil in every corner of the gallows is not because she is paranoid. She sees evil in every shadow, beacuse it's there. And Orsino is protecting it.

Actually, we literally never see anyone in the Circle do anything evil until Best Served Cold, and Grace is possessed anyway (beat her down as a human and she rises again as a pride abomination). So... yeah, paranoia.

Kirkwall is completely screwed up, but when it comes to Last Straw... as Hawke said "He[Templar] is a better bet than a demon." Something that , after 7 years of fighting blood mage after blood mage and demon after demon and abomination after abomination flowing out of the Gallows, we can all agree on.

Again, you fight all the demons no matter which side you choose. And templars are just one rung above demons.

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

And mages are the only only innocent? Never knew that ALL Templars had a heart of evil and only wait for a crazy Knight Commander to call a RoA so they can slaughter the only innocents in the universe.

Templars are all combatants, and all the ones participating in the Annulment are willing to commit genocide.

In the case of Kirkwall, we see evil pouring out of the Circle over the course of seven years. Meredith trying to find and stop it and Orsino constantly getting in her way. The reason Meredith sees evil in every corner of the gallows is not because she is paranoid. She sees evil in every shadow, beacuse it's there. And Orsino is protecting it.

Actually, we literally never see anyone in the Circle do anything evil until Best Served Cold, and Grace is possessed anyway (beat her down as a human and she rises again as a pride abomination). So... yeah, paranoia.

Kirkwall is completely screwed up, but when it comes to Last Straw... as Hawke said "He[Templar] is a better bet than a demon." Something that , after 7 years of fighting blood mage after blood mage and demon after demon and abomination after abomination flowing out of the Gallows, we can all agree on.

Again, you fight all the demons no matter which side you choose. And templars are just one rung above demons.

1) How do you know they are all willing to do so? Did they tell you? Did you find some mysterious note that I did not when I played the mage side? I distinctly remember the game doing a good job telling me that neither Templar nor mage are purely innocent in this mess.

2) Yet Grace is a Circle mage. If she was allowed to be made Tranquil, that might not have happened. And that is the First Enchanter's perogative/okay.

3) cant argue this one.

[Xilizhra]

1) How do you know they are all willing to do so? Did they tell you? Did you find some mysterious note that I did not when I played the mage side? I distinctly remember the game doing a good job telling me that neither Templar nor mage are purely innocent in this mess.

If they participate, they're guilty.

2) Yet Grace is a Circle mage. If she was allowed to be made Tranquil, that might not have happened. And that is the First Enchanter's perogative/okay.

And the procedure remains unjustifiable.

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

1) How do you know they are all willing to do so? Did they tell you? Did you find some mysterious note that I did not when I played the mage side? I distinctly remember the game doing a good job telling me that neither Templar nor mage are purely innocent in this mess.

If they participate, they're guilty.

2) Yet Grace is a Circle mage. If she was allowed to be made Tranquil, that might not have happened. And that is the First Enchanter's perogative/okay.

And the procedure remains unjustifiable.

1) So the fact that they participate means they are evil, even if they were reluctant? Strange morals you have there/

2) You are kidding, right? Grace was obviously evil, she should have been killed.

The first Enchanter protected her and the mages in Kirkwall, through him, were just as guilty as the templars. If you play the Templar side, the mages try to kill you. If they participate they are guilty. The only innocent are the ones who lie down and die.

[Xilizhra]

1) So the fact that they participate means they are evil, even if they were reluctant? Strange morals you have there/

Yes. Why is it strange? We've determined, I think, that "following orders" is an insufficient excuse for atrocity.

2) You are kidding, right? Grace was obviously evil, she should have been killed.

Evidently it wasn't that obvious. She's bitter before, but her only outright crazy behavior comes after possession.

The first Enchanter protected her and the mages in Kirkwall, through him, were just as guilty as the templars. If you play the Templar side, the mages try to kill you. If they participate they are guilty. The only innocent are the ones who lie down and die.

All mages in question, aside from the ones you kill in both playthroughs, are innocents who are only defending themselves.

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

1) So the fact that they participate means they are evil, even if they were reluctant? Strange morals you have there/

Yes. Why is it strange? We've determined, I think, that "following orders" is an insufficient excuse for atrocity.

2) You are kidding, right? Grace was obviously evil, she should have been killed.

Evidently it wasn't that obvious. She's bitter before, but her only outright crazy behavior comes after possession.

The first Enchanter protected her and the mages in Kirkwall, through him, were just as guilty as the templars. If you play the Templar side, the mages try to kill you. If they participate they are guilty. The only innocent are the ones who lie down and die.

All mages in question, aside from the ones you kill in both playthroughs, are innocents who are only defending themselves.

Yet they participate in fighting and the slaughter of "guilty" "Innocent" who were likely only following orders out of fear. They participate, therefore are guilty of evil.

Guilt/Innocence, Good/Evil have no place in Dragon age and are nonexistent constructs. This means that even the mages are guilty, even if they "look Innocent" and can't be classified as innocents.

Modifié par draken-heart, 10 novembre 2013 - 06:19 .

[Xilizhra]

Yet they participate in fighting and the slaughter of "guilty" "Innocent" who were likely only following orders out of fear. They participate, therefore are guilty of evil.

Your analogy is deranged. The templars are aggressive combatants, the mages are defensive noncombatants.

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

Yet they participate in fighting and the slaughter of "guilty" "Innocent" who were likely only following orders out of fear. They participate, therefore are guilty of evil.

Your analogy is deranged. The templars are aggressive combatants, the mages are defensive combatants.

Fixed that. IF they defend themselvesm they are not noncombatants. Noncombatants do not fight, at all.

[Xilizhra]

draken-heart wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Yet they participate in fighting and the slaughter of "guilty" "Innocent" who were likely only following orders out of fear. They participate, therefore are guilty of evil.

Your analogy is deranged. The templars are aggressive combatants, the mages are defensive combatants.

Fixed that. IF they defend themselvesm they are not noncombatants. Noncombatants do not fight, at all.

The mages are not in a combatant occupation; they're forced to defend themselves with whatever tools are at hand. They're still civilians.

[Bardox9]

Doesn't matter if your occupation involves combat or not. You engage in combat, you are by definition a combatant.

In Kirkwalls case, a mage has these choices: If you see a Templar then stand and fight or hide. If a Templar sees you then stand and fight, run for your life, or surrender. Personally, I would have run into the gallows, painted a Tranquil symbol on my forehead and tried to pass myself off as one of those zombie types... or hidden and waited for a clear moment to snatch a dead templars armor and tried to sneak out.

In the larger scheme of things, you can say they were "forced" into this war trying to remove from them any responsiblity for their actions, but the mages did have choices other than trying to go head to head against soldiers specifically trained to kill them.

Not to say the Templars are any less responsible for the events leading up to the RoA. They have their own share of the blame in this. Just don't try to absolve the mages by calling them noncombatants.

Modifié par Bardox9, 10 novembre 2013 - 07:34 .

[draken-heart]

Bardox9 wrote...

Doesn't matter if your occupation involves combat or not. You engage in combat, you are by definition a combatant.

In Kirkwalls case, a mage has these choices: If you see a Templar then stand and fight or hide. If a Templar sees you then stand and fight, run for your life, or surrender. Personally, I would have run into the gallows, painted a Tranquil symbol on my forehead and tried to pass myself off as one of those zombie types... or hidden and waited for a clear moment to snatch a dead templars armor and tried to sneak out.

In the larger scheme of things, you can say they were "forced" into this war trying to remove from them any responsiblity for their actions, but the mages did have choices other than trying to go head to head against soldiers specifically trained to kill them.

Not to say the Templars are any less responsible for the events leading up to the RoA. They have their own share of the blame in this. Just don't try to absolve the mages by calling them noncombatants.

This. The mages are just as guilty for the actions of Orsino as the templars are guilty of the actions of the knight commander. Both are innocent in respect to this mess but both are also guilty of what happened afterwards.

[Xilizhra]

Bardox9 wrote...

Doesn't matter if your occupation involves combat or not. You engage in combat, you are by definition a combatant.

In Kirkwalls case, a mage has these choices: If you see a Templar then stand and fight or hide. If a Templar sees you then stand and fight, run for your life, or surrender. Personally, I would have run into the gallows, painted a Tranquil symbol on my forehead and tried to pass myself off as one of those zombie types... or hidden and waited for a clear moment to snatch a dead templars armor and tried to sneak out.

In the larger scheme of things, you can say they were "forced" into this war trying to remove from them any responsiblity for their actions, but the mages did have choices other than trying to go head to head against soldiers specifically trained to kill them.

Not to say the Templars are any less responsible for the events leading up to the RoA. They have their own share of the blame in this. Just don't try to absolve the mages by calling them noncombatants.

If you want to quibble, "civilians" works too. It changes nothing of substance.

[draken-heart]

Mages, even if they win, they lose. They lost their first enchanter, and even a huge chunk of mages in the fighting. I only remember seeing one, maybe two mages outside of Circle!Bethany who survive. Hardly enough to justify a win. Maybe a "hollow victory" But the Mages still lose everything, and a good portion of the Templars still live so...

Modifié par draken-heart, 10 novembre 2013 - 01:53 .

[Xilizhra]

draken-heart wrote...

Mages, even if they win, they lose. They lost their first enchanter, and even a huge chunk of mages in the fighting. I only remember seeing one, maybe two mages outside of Circle!Bethany who survive. Hardly enough to justify a win. Maybe a "hollow victory" But the Mages still lose everything, and a good portion of the Templars still live so...

Varric specifically says that "many survived to tell the tale."

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Mages, even if they win, they lose. They lost their first enchanter, and even a huge chunk of mages in the fighting. I only remember seeing one, maybe two mages outside of Circle!Bethany who survive. Hardly enough to justify a win. Maybe a "hollow victory" But the Mages still lose everything, and a good portion of the Templars still live so...

Varric specifically says that "many survived to tell the tale."

Varric is a known liar, so I do not believe the guy. The parts where he knowingly exxagerates the story makes it clear that the mages might not have survived, except in his words. Maybe the templars actually tell the tale, maybe the "Mages" were hidden templars who had "some" magical ability but never trained. Who knows, And I do not trust Varric at all.

Besides, Hawke is wrong either way, because the only right choice was taken from us by the devs. Templars are the closest thing to ensuring the Safety of Kirkwall from the corruption of anything inside itself.

Modifié par draken-heart, 10 novembre 2013 - 02:18 .

[Xilizhra]

draken-heart wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Mages, even if they win, they lose. They lost their first enchanter, and even a huge chunk of mages in the fighting. I only remember seeing one, maybe two mages outside of Circle!Bethany who survive. Hardly enough to justify a win. Maybe a "hollow victory" But the Mages still lose everything, and a good portion of the Templars still live so...

Varric specifically says that "many survived to tell the tale."

Varric is a known liar, so I do not believe the guy. The parts where he knowingly exxagerates the story makes it clear that the mages might not have survived, except in his words.

I still say the story did not actually happen the way Varric tells it, even the whole story.

Then we have literally nothing to say about the story that can't be countered with "he might have lied."