538 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Yet again: a big part of my problem is that there is, at the time Meredith declares the Annulment, little evidence for widespread blood magic *IN* the Circle. Basically it's two recently fled mages: Huon and Evelina, and Grace. One non-Circle mage makes a terrorist attack on the Chantry and suddenly all mages are to be killed? That's ludicrious, giving in to exactly the kind of mob mentality templars supposedly exist to protect mages from.

[dragonflight288]

And we know from Awakening (and real life) that coddling a mob and giving them what they want only makes riots and mobs form more often in the future as they become entitled and feel like they can get it simply because they demand it.

In this case, it never was demanded. Meredith simply made the assumption and said it will happen. It hadn't actually happened. And we know from Kerras that she was trying to get the Annulment for some time anyway, so it wasn't a spur of the moment decision. She wanted to kill all the mages.

[Ryzaki]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yet again: a big part of my problem is that there is, at the time Meredith declares the Annulment, little evidence for widespread blood magic *IN* the Circle. Basically it's two recently fled mages: Huon and Evelina, and Grace. One non-Circle mage makes a terrorist attack on the Chantry and suddenly all mages are to be killed? That's ludicrious, giving in to exactly the kind of mob mentality templars supposedly exist to protect mages from.

Um...there kind of is.

Constant blood mage attacks isn't evidence for widespread bloodmagic *in* the circle? Where pray tell where all the mages coming from? The only place they can get formal training (unless they had a parent with formal training or came from tevinter) is the circle. Most of the bloodmages Hawke meets have escaped from a circle. Grace wasn't the only one using bloodmagic she had taught others (including Alain) thus the whole "bloodmages and their willing dupes." tidbit. Bloodmages planning to overthrow the night commander somehow *isn't* proof the circle's been compromised?

It only takes a handful of bloodmages to turn everything into **** as DAO showed. Four bloodmages in the circle planning a revolt is enough means for the circle to be culled. Especially when the First enchanter was either blind to what they're doing or ignoring it (or as it turns out doing it himself). Bloodmages are an infection and the templars cut off the limb to keep it from spreading, sadly as there's no better/more efficent ways of culling bloodmages from the rest of the mages the RoA is used in its place.

I mean I get why people side with the mages but let's not pretend the templars don't have any reasons for what they do other than the evil lulz.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 18 novembre 2013 - 07:50 .

[Ieldra]

Ryzaki wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yet again: a big part of my problem is that there is, at the time Meredith declares the Annulment, little evidence for widespread blood magic *IN* the Circle. Basically it's two recently fled mages: Huon and Evelina, and Grace. One non-Circle mage makes a terrorist attack on the Chantry and suddenly all mages are to be killed? That's ludicrious, giving in to exactly the kind of mob mentality templars supposedly exist to protect mages from.

Wat.

Constant blood mage attacks isn't evidence for widespread bloodmagic *in* the circle? Where pray tell where the mages coming from? Grace wasn't the only one using bloodmagic she had taught others thus the whole "bloodmages and their willing dupes." tidbit. Bloodmages planning to overthrow the night commander somehow *isn't* proof the circle's been compromised?

Neither in "A Noble Agenda" nor in "Best Served Cold" (the quests dealing with overthrowing Meredith) did anyone summon demons or turn abomination except Grace. We have evidence that an outside group (the Resolutionists) is stirring unrest in Kirkwall. These things call for investigation, not eradication. Also, Meredith explicitly invokes mob rule as justification for the Annulment: "The people of Kirkwall want retribution, and I'm going to give it to them". Sorry, doesn't work for me as a justification for the Annulment.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 novembre 2013 - 07:49 .

[Ryzaki]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Neither in "A Noble Agenda" nor in "Best Served Cold" (the quests dealing with overthrowing Meredith) did anyone summon demons or turn abomination except Grace. We have evidence that an outside group (the Resolutionists) is stirring unrest in Kirkwall. These things call for investigation, not eradication. Also, Meredith explicitly invokes mob rule as justification for the Annulment: "The people of Kirkwall want retribution, and I'm going to give it to them". Sorry, doesn't work for me as a justification for the Annulment.

The resolutionists have been in Kirkwall since act 1? Cause I doubt that. Where they there in act 2 as well? Because I recall having side quests to bring in escaped mages and woe and behold! Bloodmages. Lots of em. (Of course to get these quests in the first place you have to have sided with the templars in act 1). This crap has been at least six years ungoing.

She tried investigation. Orsino kept blocking her. (Probably because he had **** to hide).

And yeah her mob justification isn't reasonable that does not mean however that a Hawke that sides with her has to share said justification or that siding with her is wrong on principle. That's where you lose me with the "how can you side with her?" My Hawke sides with her to minimize the damage and stop any bloodmages from wrecking havoc in the chaos.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 18 novembre 2013 - 07:58 .

[Xilizhra]

And yeah her mob justification isn't reasonable that does not mean however that a Hawke that sides with her has to share said justification or that siding with her is wrong on principle. That's where you lose me with the "how can you side with her?" My Hawke sides with her to minimize the damage and stop any bloodmages from wrecking havoc in the chaos.

Minimize the damage through mass slaughter? How counterintuitive.

[MisterJB]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
Let's say that 48 people are killed by one maleficar that escapes. Judging by the morality of most normal people in Thedas, five will be rapists, thirteen will be murderers, two will be extortionists, seven will be corrupt aristocrats, eleven will be thieves, seven will be religious zealots, leave three innocent peasants who will possibly be killed versus the dozens of innocents who will certainly die if you go through with the plan.

I don't have much sympathy of the nameless multitude in Thedas. Most are usually of the casually corrupt to totally monstrous persuasion anyway.

Following that logic, since mages are no more moral than the rest of Thedosians and that there are simply far more normal people than there are mages, by Annuling the Circle you're still killing a great number of "evil people" and saving more innocents.

[Jedimaster88]

From the beginning there are signs that Meredith has done her share also for the situation coming this bad.

I think it was Thrask who said that many of Merediths actions have actually created more problems than solved them.

There is also that guest where you investigate the missing templars in act 1. Macha tells you about the dark rumors about Meredith and is scared to talk too much. Often rumors are just rumors but there can be a bit of truth in them also.

From Karl, Anders learns that the templars use more freely the rite of tranquility, that mages cant make any cases in court and other things. Oh and Alain tells how that templars pretty much rape them and other nasty things. There are two options. Either Meredith doesnt care or she cant keep her own men in line. You push someone and eventually they will push back.

Yes there are lots of blood mages. Some of them may very well have bad intentions but most of them seem to do it out of desperation. It gives them something to fight back with. The way I see it, the blood mages arent the problem, they are symptoms of the real problems. The best way to deal with diseases is to eliminate the true problems before symptoms become too bad. With real problems I mean Meredith, Orsino and even Elthina.

The mages arent completely innocent but despite of it, my Hawkes side with them. In order for things to change, you just have to make a stand sometimes. My Hawkes are also pretty tired of Kirkwall in the end and they were planning to leave anyway.

[MisterJB]

Jedimaster88 wrote...
Yes there are lots of blood mages. Some of them may very well have bad intentions but most of them seem to do it out of desperation. It gives them something to fight back with. The way I see it, the blood mages arent the problem, they are symptoms of the real problems.

There was a single blood mage in all of DA2 that could truthfully say he only used blood magic in self defense and that was Alain. Every other had ulterior motives which usually involved conquest or stitching middle aged women together amidst other unsavory things.

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

Jedimaster88 wrote...
Yes there are lots of blood mages. Some of them may very well have bad intentions but most of them seem to do it out of desperation. It gives them something to fight back with. The way I see it, the blood mages arent the problem, they are symptoms of the real problems.

There was a single blood mage in all of DA2 that could truthfully say he only used blood magic in self defense and that was Alain. Every other had ulterior motives which usually involved conquest or stitching middle aged women together amidst other unsavory things.

Merrill was harmless, Gascard was redeemable, and the only other people we could tell were blood mages, only revealed it battle--rather naturally. And the only two people who wanted to conquer anything were Tahrone and Huon. Decimus was going for self-defense and was only stupidly hotheaded about his opponents, Orsino succumbed to despair, Quentin had a personal project going because he was crazy (and such things are hardly unknown among nonmage serial killers), Hadriana and Danarius were on a mission to reclaim their own property by their reckoning.

[draken-heart]

Let's look at it logically:

If you were Hawke, who many mages would you say be totally innocent? I could not say any of them would be. Orsino antagonizing Meredith at every turn, and sending Hawke to investigate reports of a rebellion against Meredith are clear evidence that he is hiding something from the knight-commander. then he also knows Quentin, throwing up a huge red flag.

How can anyone say that the mages are innocent of corruption? How can anyone say the Templars are right? There is no evidence of anything except one's stupid moral compass which should be ignored when playing Dragon Age.

[Xilizhra]

If you were Hawke, who many mages would you say be totally innocent? I could not say any of them would be. Orsino antagonizing Meredith at every turn, and sending Hawke to investigate reports of a rebellion against Meredith are clear evidence that he is hiding something from the knight-commander. then he also knows Quentin, throwing up a huge red flag.

I don't know. But every templar participating in the Annulment is guilty, so things work out far more smoothly.

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

If you were Hawke, who many mages would you say be totally innocent? I could not say any of them would be. Orsino antagonizing Meredith at every turn, and sending Hawke to investigate reports of a rebellion against Meredith are clear evidence that he is hiding something from the knight-commander. then he also knows Quentin, throwing up a huge red flag.

I don't know. But every templar participating in the Annulment is guilty, so things work out far more smoothly.

And so is every mage fighting back. You cannot say that the mages are innocent and the templars guilty unless you are taking a moral stand that the templars are 1000% evil and cannot be redeemed. you have no clue of what anyone on either side is thinking.

Being forced to do something is not the same as being willing to do something. There is no correct side, and both sides are just as wrong as the other, which is what the game tries to tell you from the beginnig.

Here is another scenario. You are a bandit, but only forge weapons and armor for your crew. When one raid goes wrong and the guards slaughter everyone and come for you, are you going to say that you are innocent, knowing that you helped get your fellow bandits geared for that raid? or are you going to let them do their job knowing that you are just as guilty as the rest of those bandits?

Modifié par draken-heart, 18 novembre 2013 - 06:49 .

[Xilizhra]

And so is every mage fighting back. You cannot say that the mages are innocent and the templars guilty unless you are taking a moral stand that the templars are 1000% evil and cannot be redeemed. you have no clue of what anyone on either side is thinking.

I don't have to. All I have to know is what they're doing, and that the templars are the aggressors.

Being forced to do something is not the same as being willing to do something. There is no correct side, and both sides are just as wrong as the other, which is what the game tries to tell you from the beginnig.

Orders are no excuse.

Here is another scenario. You are a bandit, but only forge weapons and
armor for your crew. When one raid goes wrong and the guards slaughter
everyone and come for you, are you going to say that you are innocent,
knowing that you helped get your fellow bandits geared for that raid? or
are you going to let them do their job knowing that you are just as
guilty as the rest of those bandits?

I would try to do what I could to stop any bloodshed.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 18 novembre 2013 - 06:50 .

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

And so is every mage fighting back. You cannot say that the mages are innocent and the templars guilty unless you are taking a moral stand that the templars are 1000% evil and cannot be redeemed. you have no clue of what anyone on either side is thinking.

I don't have to. All I have to know is what they're doing, and that the templars are the aggressors.

Being forced to do something is not the same as being willing to do something. There is no correct side, and both sides are just as wrong as the other, which is what the game tries to tell you from the beginnig.

Orders are no excuse.

Here is another scenario. You are a bandit, but only forge weapons and
armor for your crew. When one raid goes wrong and the guards slaughter
everyone and come for you, are you going to say that you are innocent,
knowing that you helped get your fellow bandits geared for that raid? or
are you going to let them do their job knowing that you are just as
guilty as the rest of those bandits?

I would try to do what I could to stop any bloodshed.

Motive is actually a great mitgating circumstance. But I will not argue with you any further. Seems to me that you are madly in love with ORsino and the mage and see evey templar fighting as evil and guilty, even though you have no clue whether they actually want to or not.

I personally believe that both sides are just as guilty of genocide/mass slaughter as the other. Mages still kill tons of Templars and, had the rest not backed off, the Templars would have slaughtered all the mages anyways. And the mages still get basically eradicated from Kirkwall anyways, and forced out,  to where they can be hunted freely now being apostates. You are saving no one on the mages side either. Hawke can even tell Grace that the Circle is better than life on the run.

Modifié par draken-heart, 18 novembre 2013 - 07:04 .

[Xilizhra]

Motive is actually a great mitgating circumstance. But I will not argue with you any further. Seems to me that you are madly in love with ORsino and the mage and see evey templar fighting as evil and guilty, even though you have no clue whether they actually want to or not.

See Nuremberg.

I personally believe that both sides are just as guilty of genocide/mass slaughter as the other.

Then you believe wrongly.

Mages still kill tons of Templars and, had the rest not backed off, the Templars would have slaughtered all the mages anyways.

The mages act only in self-defense.

You are saving no one on the mages side either.

Varric confirms that many survive. And leading them into apostasy was kind of the point.

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

Motive is actually a great mitgating circumstance. But I will not argue with you any further. Seems to me that you are madly in love with ORsino and the mage and see evey templar fighting as evil and guilty, even though you have no clue whether they actually want to or not.

See Nuremberg.

I personally believe that both sides are just as guilty of genocide/mass slaughter as the other.

Then you believe wrongly.

Mages still kill tons of Templars and, had the rest not backed off, the Templars would have slaughtered all the mages anyways.

The mages act only in self-defense.

You are saving no one on the mages side either.

Varric confirms that many survive. And leading them into apostasy was kind of the point.

So you want to be hunted like animals. Surviving is not the point. The point is that you did not stop the genocide of Kirkwall's mages, just prolonged it. The city itself is corrupted thanks to tevinter. Any  place where the bloody veil is thin should not have a circle in the first place. Bad design and choices on everyone's part. Even the mages.

They are not 100% either, as I see it, if Orsino antagonizing Meredith shows. They would have to be hiding something otherwise Meredith might not be as paranoid as people say she is.

[Xilizhra]

So you want to be hunted like animals. Surviving is not the point. The point is that you did not stop the genocide of Kirkwall's mages, just prolonged it. The city itself is corrupted thanks to tevinter. Any place where the bloody veil is thin should not have a circle in the first place. Bad design and choices on everyone's part. Even the mages.

The mages are no longer in Kirkwall.

They are not 100% either, as I see it, if Orsino antagonizing Meredith shows. They would have to be hiding something otherwise Meredith might not be as paranoid as people say she is.

Orsino was not an aggressor.

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

So you want to be hunted like animals. Surviving is not the point. The point is that you did not stop the genocide of Kirkwall's mages, just prolonged it. The city itself is corrupted thanks to tevinter. Any place where the bloody veil is thin should not have a circle in the first place. Bad design and choices on everyone's part. Even the mages.

The mages are no longer in Kirkwall.

They are not 100% either, as I see it, if Orsino antagonizing Meredith shows. They would have to be hiding something otherwise Meredith might not be as paranoid as people say she is.

Orsino was not an aggressor.

1) The mages may be out of Kirkwall, but that does not mean the Templars are just going to give up. They will hunt them down like dogs, even if it means forcing the issue. Life on the run does not grant immunity from being hunted down and killed.

2) What? How is not cooperating and basically keeping meredith from doing her duties not antagonozing?

Though it seems you are just plain biased against order so I will leave you with this: Kirkwall deserves to burn, but getting rid of potential problems, form both sides should have been the answer, but since it was not, I will take security for Kirkwall over the freedom of a tiny handful of mages who are getting hunted down anyways.

[Xilizhra]

1) The mages may be out of Kirkwall, but that does not mean the Templars are just going to give up. They will hunt them down like dogs, even if it means forcing the issue. Life on the run does not grant immunity from being hunted down and killed.

Neither did life in the Circle. Enough survive anyway.

2) What? How is not cooperating and basically keeping meredith from doing her duties not antagonozing?

He wasn't doing violence, and Meredith was overstepping.

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

1) The mages may be out of Kirkwall, but that does not mean the Templars are just going to give up. They will hunt them down like dogs, even if it means forcing the issue. Life on the run does not grant immunity from being hunted down and killed.

Neither did life in the Circle. Enough survive anyway.

2) What? How is not cooperating and basically keeping meredith from doing her duties not antagonozing?

He wasn't doing violence, and Meredith was overstepping.

Nobody seems to read the band of three anymore.

It is well known that the Veil is thin in Kirkwall, small wonder given the suffering in the city. But we've discovered the magisters were deliberately thinning it even further. Beneath the city, demons can contact even normal men. Did they seek the Black City to compound the madness of their previous efforts? Or was it something else? We've found a chamber where the Veil is at its thinnest, long-since looted, but the power is still there. Tonight we will go there. Pray for us. Pray for us all.

This makes it hard for me to justify siding with the mages. How can I defend people who could become abominations whule I am defending them and they could try to kill me? I can't.

Meredith may not be a good person, but sometimes to ensure safety of the common man (even hypothetically), the evil actions are the best course of action.

[Xilizhra]

This makes it hard for me to justify siding with the mages. How can I defend people who could become abominations whule I am defending them and they could try to kill me? I can't.

You can. I do so with ease.

Meredith may not be a good person, but sometimes to ensure safety of the common man (even hypothetically), the evil actions are the best course of action.

Not here.

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

This makes it hard for me to justify siding with the mages. How can I defend people who could become abominations whule I am defending them and they could try to kill me? I can't.

You can. I do so with ease.

Meredith may not be a good person, but sometimes to ensure safety of the common man (even hypothetically), the evil actions are the best course of action.

Not here.

By how? Ignoring the risk of them becoming abominations? What good do they do outside of running from Templars who are only guilty of doing their duty, albeit overzealously? IS it the Chantry explosion? Are you only looking at that? I see no reason to side with any of them, and randomly choose one simply because there is no good in either side. The only good mages you see are "anders" Merrill, and Bethany. Every other mage in the city is either crazy or evil.

[Xilizhra]

By how? Ignoring the risk of them becoming abominations? What good do they do outside of running from Templars who are only guilty of doing their duty, albeit overzealously? IS it the Chantry explosion? Are you only looking at that? I see no reason to side with any of them, and randomly choose one simply because there is no good in either side. The only good mages you see are "anders" Merrill, and Bethany. Every other mage in the city is either crazy or evil.

You're not looking in the right places, and duty can be atrocious, in which case it shouldn't be followed.

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

By how? Ignoring the risk of them becoming abominations? What good do they do outside of running from Templars who are only guilty of doing their duty, albeit overzealously? IS it the Chantry explosion? Are you only looking at that? I see no reason to side with any of them, and randomly choose one simply because there is no good in either side. The only good mages you see are "anders" Merrill, and Bethany. Every other mage in the city is either crazy or evil.

You're not looking in the right places, and duty can be atrocious, in which case it shouldn't be followed.

Especially when everyone outside of Hawke's group is either insane or evil, including both mages and Templars?

There is no good or evil here. The only good option is to not complete the game, as both sides are just as wrong as the others in different ways. One cannot say that the mages are innocent and Templars guilty unless they are pure biased against the templars. and vice versa for the templars.

I guess you could say there is idealism and pragmatism here, but that is stretching. Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, Innocence and Guilt are Just imaginary constructs people use to justify their actions.

Modifié par draken-heart, 18 novembre 2013 - 08:17 .