8640 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

I'm clarifying a point by the other poster I believe to be incorrect, because he or she was referring to a side that I don't believe existed at the time.

 

 

You misinterpreted what another poster said, reacted, and are backpeddling.

 

 

 

I'm fairly sure that mass imprisonment was mentioned somewhere in the UN definition too.

 

 

Nope. Not for genocide: only if it is done in the context of destroying a group. Even the Templar's taking the children of mages isn't a group-destroying policy.

 

You could appeal to other crimes for mass imprisonment, but not genocide. The UN doesn't actually have much to say about mass detainments either, and certainly not in a way that particularly favors mages.

 

 

Well, you pointed out an internal inconsistency, and I've revised my goal based on that. It might actually be more helpful than I initially realized for possible compromise purposes, so thank you for that.

 

 

Sure thing. Still going to call the Annulment an act of genocide?

[Xilizhra]

You misinterpreted what another poster said, reacted, and are backpeddling.

Not really, no.

 

 

 

Nope. Not for genocide: only if it is done in the context of destroying a group. Even the Templar's taking the children of mages isn't a group-destroying policy.

 

You could appeal to other crimes for mass imprisonment, but not genocide. The UN doesn't actually have much to say about mass detainments either, and certainly not in a way that particularly favors mages.

I find this dubious at best, but regardless, it's still a war the templars declared, so I'm almost certain that fighting it is fine legally.

 

 

 

Sure thing. Still going to call the Annulment an act of genocide?

Yes. You might prefer politicide, but because membership in Kirkwall's Circle was determined by birth and not individual choice, even if the Circle is organized, I really don't think that it counts.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Politicide. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Dean_the_Young]

I find this dubious at best, but regardless, it's still a war the templars declared, so I'm almost certain that fighting it is fine legally.

 

 

Well, the UN's website is right there from google. Don't take my word for it- read for yourself.

 

As for legally, you'll run into trouble there. Declaring independence is what initiates the war in a context where there is no right to independence, not a following refusal to accept it. And that's in the UN system, which is surprisingly favorable to status quo states, and in which 'self-determination of peoples' has easily been 'letting a nation self-determine how it will treat its minorities,' rather than 'supporting secessionist oppressed minorities.'

 

The only laws and rights Mages have are the ones of Thedas, which has no western liberalism or concept of universal rights. It doesn't even have a substitute premise for 'all men were created equal' as a political philosophy: the Chantry and the Maker's regard for people is the closest equivalent. Mages don't have a right to break free of the Circle system in the first place: they are the initiators of a rebellion, not a victim of a declaration of war.

 

 

Yes. You might prefer politicide, but because membership in Kirkwall's Circle was determined by birth and not individual choice, even if the Circle is organized, I really don't think that it counts.

 

 

Alas, it does. Or rather, does if you follow the uniform standard that has convicted you as well.

 

Me, I'm perfectly fine with calling it other crimes short of Genocide, and deeming them sufficient. But then, I (and by which I mean the Hawke I played as a reflection of my views) fought against the Templars at the end.

 

Does that surprise you?

[Xilizhra]

As for legally, you'll run into trouble there. Declaring independence is what initiates the war in a context where there is no right to independence, not a following refusal to accept it. And that's in the UN system, which is surprisingly favorable to status quo states, and in which 'self-determination of peoples' has easily been 'letting a nation self-determine how it will treat its minorities,' rather than 'supporting secessionist oppressed minorities.'

 

The only laws and rights Mages have are the ones of Thedas, which has no western liberalism or concept of universal rights. It doesn't even have a substitute premise for 'all men were created equal' as a political philosophy: the Chantry and the Maker's regard for people is the closest equivalent. Mages don't have a right to break free of the Circle system in the first place: they are the initiators of a rebellion, not a victim of a declaration of war.

This may have applied... if the Chantry had declared war on the mages for seceding. But it explicitly did not. The templars had to declare independence themselves, doing exactly the same thing the mages did, to pursue their own war against the mages.

 

Alas, it does. Or rather, does if you follow the uniform standard that has convicted you as well.

Did I not alter my goal to remove said conviction?

 

Me, I'm perfectly fine with calling it other crimes short of Genocide, and deeming them sufficient. But then, I (and by which I mean the Hawke I played as a reflection of my views) fought against the Templars at the end.

 

Does that surprise you?

Not at all. You're perfectly willing to fight against the status quo if you deem it moribund, something I remember very well from ME.

[MisterJB]

 But then, I (and by which I mean the Hawke I played as a reflection of my views) fought against the Templars at the end.

 

Does that surprise you?

I would be interested in hearing your reasons, yes.

[EmperorSahlertz]

You aren't fighting against the status quo at the end of DA2 though. You are fighting against an injustice commited against innocents. You can be staunchly pro-Templar or pro-Circle and still side against Meredith in the end of DA2.

[Dean_the_Young]

This may have applied... if the Chantry had declared war on the mages for seceding. But it explicitly did not. The templars had to declare independence themselves, doing exactly the same thing the mages did, to pursue their own war against the mages.

 

 

The Chantry isn't the executor of the Chantry system, and it's willingness to tolerate (or rather, inability to affect) mage independence is different from rights of the mages to rebel. The Templars have a strong case that they are fulfilling their mandate in breaking away from the Chantry: the Templars have always been an association with the Chantry, rather than a subordinate unit of, and the Templars' mandate has been the Circle system.

 

Of course, legality is a bit of a lost cause here since (a) we don't know all the laws, and ( no one cares. The Mages aren't rebelling because they have a right to, and the Templars aren't trying to prevent it because they're obligated to.

 

 

Did I not alter my goal to remove said conviction?

 

 

I don't know: did you? You haven't exactly elaborated what changes you've made to your idea of an endstate.

 

Plus, falling afoul of Genocide by the broad standard affects past positions of yours as well. But that's not really important here.

 

 

Not at all. You're perfectly willing to fight against the status quo if you deem it moribund, something I remember very well from ME.

 

 

Heh, good catch. There are a lot of people on these forums who would be surprised on account of my general pro-Circle System (often miscast as pro-Templar) views.

 

 

While far short of what many western liberalism pro-mages want, there are a surprising number of reforms I would want to make to the Circle. Granted, many of them would be hard to justify in-universe for a lack of political and scientific sophistication, but I've actually started organizing those thoughts into four main pillars of reform. The professionalization of the Templars, the psychological nurturing of the mages, a demystification of magic, and a public utilization of mages to channel their powers for public goods and acceptance.

 

None of which changes the core fundamentals of the Circle system, and some of the aspects people hate most, but which would relieve immediate pressures and offer a path to potential long-term change that both mundanes and mages might be comfortable with.

[Xilizhra]

The Chantry isn't the executor of the Chantry system, and it's willingness to tolerate (or rather, inability to affect) mage independence is different from rights of the mages to rebel. The Templars have a strong case that they are fulfilling their mandate in breaking away from the Chantry: the Templars have always been an association with the Chantry, rather than a subordinate unit of, and the Templars' mandate has been the Circle system.

I'm fairly sure that the templars have always been placed as subordinates (Knight-Commander beneath Grand Cleric, Knight-Vigilant and Lord Seeker beneath Divine, etc.). But I suppose that legality doesn't matter that much in the end.

 

I don't know: did you? You haven't exactly elaborated what changes you've made to your idea of an endstate.

The templars are beaten in the war and will no longer have any ability to affect the Circle whatsoever. Beyond that, they could still serve as the Chantry's army against forces like the qunari, possibly.

 

While far short of what many western liberalism pro-mages want, there are a surprising number of reforms I would want to make to the Circle. Granted, many of them would be hard to justify in-universe for a lack of political and scientific sophistication, but I've actually started organizing those thoughts into four main pillars of reform. The professionalization of the Templars, the psychological nurturing of the mages, a demystification of magic, and a public utilization of mages to channel their powers for public goods and acceptance.

I'm fine with this, provided it also includes the secularization of templars, the abolishing of involuntary Tranquility and Annulment, and (if the Chantry is still running the Circles), the inclusion of mages into the Chantry's government.

[The Elder King]

You aren't fighting against the status quo at the end of DA2 though. You are fighting against an injustice commited against innocents. You can be staunchly pro-Templar or pro-Circle and still side against Meredith in the end of DA2.

Well said.

[Dean_the_Young]

I would be interested in hearing your reasons, yes.

 

The short version is that at that moment Meredith was justifying an Annulment because the masses were afraid of the Mages, rather than the threat of the Circle itself. My overriding view of the Templars is that their guardianship over the mages is two ways: they protect the masses from the mages, but at the same time are to protect the mages from the fears of the masses. The same person who is the shield of the masses against the mages is also a sword to cut down mundanes who would try to kill mages for fear rather than any actual crime*. The Circle did not commit the crime, nor was it an immediate threat to the masses, and so it did not warrant an Annulment despite the corruption within it.

 

Put into practice, the Templars should have put the Circle into lock down with all the mages inside, fortified the Gallows, and cut down any mundanes who tried to mob the mages while weathering the fear-riots until the Chantry could send support and restore.

 

*If there's a scene or random encounter I feel was missing from DA2 and hope to see in DAI, it's a scene of Templars standing with swords drawn, backs to mages, between them and a lynch mob. It'd be an excellent point for a player character of reputation to arrive and resolve the situation violently or peacefully in various directions. (Calm the mob down, convince the Templars to not interfere, fight the mob alongside the Templars, fight the Templars and Mages with the mob.)

 

 

 

The longer version is that Meredith was calling an Annulment for her own interests about the Circle, rather than because of the Circle itself, and that the Annulment was convenient rather than necessary.

 

First and foremost, her public position. When she appeals to the masses (they will demand, and I will give it to them), she's completely disregarding any premise of justice and working from a position of self-interest of the Templars role in Kirkwall. Even if we discard greed for more power by winning approval, an insinuation raised is that Meredith and the Templars stand to lose a lot of power if they don't give the masses what they demand. All those Templar guards in the city? The Templar influence, recruits, the very premise of Kirkwall as a Templar stronghold? Those would be challenged, even threatened, if they don't execute the mages. This an extremely pragmatic, ammoral, self-interest argument for the Annulment of a Circle, but not one based on legitimacy or justice or even need.

 

It's an implicit argument for Templar interests, not Templar role and responsibilities, and I find it unmoving. I'm far from blind to the benefits of having power, but the Templars being so involved in Kirkwall politics was an overreach that distracted them from their mission. Yes, refusing to Annul the circle would have carried costs... but preserving those gains are not the purpose of the Templars. The Circles and Mages are. In the end, a system with insufficient justice and legitimacy to encourage buy in from its members is begging for failure and rejection. Meredith was placing political interests (which, while beneficial to the Templars, should not be their priority) over the interests of her charges (which are her priority). That is wrong on both pragmatic and moral grounds: morally because the Templars should be mission first, politics later, and pragmatically because the Circles need mage buy-in.

 

 

 

Secondly, I didn't see Annulment as a necessity. Not even in the sense of 'the costs of not doing so are bearable', but rather 'you can still do more rather than kill them.' In this point, the Annulment was being used as a convenience (tied to the above), not a last resort.

 

Proving I'm still not a bleeding heart despite the idealism hinted at the above, here's what I think a non-insane Meredith could have done short of Annulment, and could have gotten away with: do away with the balance of power and rights that allowed Orisino to obstruct here.

 

This isn't instead of what I wrote above, mind you, but rather in addition to. Call for a Circle lockdown, get all the mages into their rooms, barricade the Gallows, and then once a sufficient force of Templars is inside and out, have a nice, direct chat with Orisino before calling for a mage gathering and announcing that, instead of an Annulment, there is a state of emergency and the Templars will be conducting an unlimited investigation of the Tower and its inhabitants. The Circle system's rights and privelages are suspended for further notice, and martial law is in effect.

 

What would this mean in practice? Meredith does away with the balance of power and Orisino's ability to obstruct her. Do away with him as well if he objects: if he's smart, he'll do what he said at the steps of the Chantry and help her search the rooms. Which can be done any time without permission or warning. Leniency for transgressions, and obstructions, will likely be minimal: if Orisino's dirty laundry is found, he'd probably be the first to go. Blood magic, spreading through the city, is highly suspect, and even cuts on the common hand points could be enough. Tranquility could be meted out to newfound crimes, and past offenders who were spared by Orisino's interferance might find themselves in a new job or afterlife as the 'corruption' is rooted out. The Mages would likely be isolated, split from one another, and likely kept in their rooms for the immediate period.

 

Which, considering the fear and likely flames in the streets of Kirkwall, would be the better option of bad and worse. The mages lose rights, the grip tightens... but the balance of fear lets them live, and when the Chantry sends support to calm the streets it also turns attention to rectifying the Circle. This would hopefully entail the rollback of restrictions and reforms, but could also entail a more nuanced focus and investigation. For all that these threads focus on the sins of the Templars, few people have ever noted how badly the Circles act as police states. Spies, snitches, blackmail- there are a lot of ways the Templars could infiltrate the mage ranks to hunt for corruption.

 

I doubt the Chantry could outright remove Meredith at this point immediate post-crisis, or would particularly want to, but the Circle system would gradually reapply itself, and the grip loosens from outside influence and attention. The state of emergency ends, at least officially. The First Enchanter is restored, and his consent is needed for Tranquility. The basic mage rights return- maybe not as they once were, with Templars openly inspecting rooms and reading mail, but the room confinement ends and business starts to return. Mages can leave the tower on sanctioned business, at first with heavy escort and then, as the situation calms, with less. Templars are dominant, but with the recent event of Anders on the minds every mage knows they'll be considered guilty by the public by default: certainly suspicion of ties to Anders and the like would be thrown around freely, and Mages not being able to challenge it.

 

Not a pretty or nice sequence, but livable. Justifiable, in some respects, as part of a very real investigation into the mage-side of problems in the Circle, even if it just accentuates the Templar issues for the immediate period. Arguably preferable, for those who didn't prefer being Anders' sacrifices. It also offers a way to avoid the immediate war, and extends that low chance for compromise and reform: in such a context, the Divine's efforts for Circle reform may get more traction without going off the wheels like Asunder.

 

Mind you, that's the middle case scenario. Worst case is that the revolutionists attempt a rebellion against the martial law and intrusive investigations, which sparks its own Annulment. Which is bad, but happens under a different context and so might not lead to a wider war if the narrative goes from 'the Templars Annuled a Circle for the crimes of an Apostate' to 'the Templars Annuled a Circle that resisted investigation after mage terrorism.' Which still might help avoid the immediate Chantry civil war.

 

Best case is that the martial law investigations do find evidence of corruption, and purge the bad actors within the Circle including Orisino, while Meredith is removed by the Chantry's reinforcements and/or post-crisis Seeker investigation of the crisis (which could find Meredith's contributions and Templar abuses in the leadup) and Meredith's suspension of the Circle rights (which might or might not be punished outright, but would certainly be worrying). On top of the global reform efforts by the Divine, local reforms for Kirkwall in the short term could be pursued by a change of leadership that such a crisis could prompt.

 

In summary, even if Meredith stops short of Annulment and executes a paranoid police state of the Circle, she can lock down any actual mage threat in the Circles without Annulment (the period of Kirkwall chaos and Circle martial law) while the events of climax would give an impetus to get other parts of the system working and responding to Kirkwall. The only mage threat this wouldn't directly address was rogue mages in Kirkwall outside of the Circle- but these wouldn't be addressed by an Annulment anyway.

 

Meredith could have done this, and could have been a lot more palatable and justified in investigating for ties to Anders (his old Circle contacts, if they remain) and blood magic (which exist) rather than executions.

 

 

 

Or at least could have, if Meredith wasn't uncompromisingly insane by the Lyrium idol. Which she is. Which is why she chose Annulment, and I chose to stand against her.

[Hellion Rex]

You aren't fighting against the status quo at the end of DA2 though. You are fighting against an injustice commited against innocents. You can be staunchly pro-Templar or pro-Circle and still side against Meredith in the end of DA2.

Good grief, I'm scared by how much I am starting to agree with you.

[BlueMagitek]

Good grief, I'm scared by how much I am starting to agree with you.

With a few exceptions, most of the arguments here are caused by either a failure of communication or slight differences in how things should be done. 

[Dean_the_Young]

I'm fairly sure that the templars have always been placed as subordinates (Knight-Commander beneath Grand Cleric, Knight-Vigilant and Lord Seeker beneath Divine, etc.). But I suppose that legality doesn't matter that much in the end.

 

Indeed: there are as many interpretations of laws as lawyers, or so I've heard. In association agreements in particular, even subordinate units have rights and expectations of the higher figure that, if not met, justify breaking hierarchy.

 

 

The templars are beaten in the war and will no longer have any ability to affect the Circle whatsoever. Beyond that, they could still serve as the Chantry's army against forces like the qunari, possibly.

 

Not sure how practical or enforceable that is, but it's a step.

 

I'm fine with this, provided it also includes the secularization of templars, the abolishing of involuntary Tranquility and Annulment, and (if the Chantry is still running the Circles), the inclusion of mages into the Chantry's government.

 

Not as all immediate changes, no, but as potential long-term reforms they would be doable.

 

Part of the professionalization of the Templars would be to distance them from the Chantry somewhat. Less religious education (mages and sin), more practical (mages and danger of abominations). Secularization would be institutional rather than personal for some time, but the biggest issue will be the ties to the Chantry. The Chantry is the only international institution with the legitimacy for a Circle system, and the Circles and Templars both need that- and the Templars do have a secondary role as the Chantry's guardians, which is how they interact with the world. Remove that and the Chantry will fund/supply another force, which would likely mean less support and less legitimacy for the Templars. This causes more problems, especially if the Templars become dependent on mages for financing. For the foreseeable future,  Templars and Chantry will likely be tied together, though 'Templar, Watcher of Mages' and 'Templar, Warriors of the Chantry', may distinguish themselves.

 

 

Abolition of the Tranquility ritual strikes me as redundant since it can already only be legally done against consent by with sanction by mage authorities as well. With the creation of the cure, it makes even less sense, and will likely be replaced by execution regardless. Mages who can't pass their

 

Of course, a long term goal I'd encourage would be the actual non-tranquil stripping of magic (or, yes, giving everyone magic), which would render tranquility moot as well.

 

The Annullment is another thing that is a bit redundant: it's a reflection of the incompatibility or effective revolt of a Circle which other measures have failed. I am certainly for more restrictions on its usage, and more use of alternatives, but saying you'll ban its usage is effectively saying you'll tolerate rebellion and an inability to enforce order.  A Circle won't be allowed to free itself from the system, and in contexts like DAO where there actually is rampant abomination the alternative to going out and clearing a towerful of demons is... well, not doing so, and the demons breaking free. That's nice for the demons, but not much else. Annullment is, in effect, an invasion of a Circle you've already been ejected from, and banning that is saying you'll accept it.

 

I would rule that Annullments should spare those who surrender unconditionally (like the ones Cullen accepts in DA2), but there would be other restrictions and losses of rights on such people. The prospect of agitators, blood mages, or hidden abominations would just be handled akin to a police state, rather than by an execution squad: being a survivor of an Annuled circle is not a ticket back to normal Circle society. At least not until hidden abominations can be reliably found, and blood magic identified.

 

 

I would allow Mages access into the Chantry institution (it doesn't really have anything to govern)... but only as part of a compromise deal in which non-Chantry mundanes enter the Circle's governance as well (actual governance, not Templar oversight), the mages have restrictions in how much placement they can claim, and the Templars watch them both for signs of blood magic influence. Don't get me wrong, I would give mages inclusion- but the dangers of claiming control of the oversight would also mean restrictions of that inclusion. Mages would never be allowed to rise in ranks of the Templars, the Seekers, or any who commanded them (which includes the top).

 

 

 

However, the keys to all of these things you would like could be enabled by future discoveries and developments, which I would promote. Being able to identify demonic possession that's remaining hidden, or identify blood magic use with ease, would be game-changing factors in the security precautions against them..

[EmperorSahlertz]

Good grief, I'm scared by how much I am starting to agree with you.

Dreadful, isn't it?

[MisterJB]

Dean_the_Young: Thanks for the response. Everything you say is fundamentally true and I do agree when you speak of how there were preferable alternatives to the Annulment. However, while you put up a strong case as to why the Annulment is not justifiable; which is not something many people ever disputed; you did not talk much about the consequences of it and how Hawke's participation will affect Kirkwall.

I believe that while the Annulment is not justifiable, Hawke's participation can be for the very reason s/he can espouse ingame; to attempt to reduce casualties.

 

Let’s go step by step: Anders murders Elthina in an extremely noticeable and magical fashion. This was done on purpose. He wished to force a confrontation between mages and non-mages by making the people of Kirkwall see their beloved Grand Cleric murdered by a mage.
Meredith made a mistake in biting the bait but this is not something that Hawke can influence. She has called for the Right of Annulment and there is no way Hawke can dissuade her from this path. All Hawke can do is choose between helping or opposing her.

If you choose to help her, Hawke must kill the entire population of the Circle; barring the few that surrender; who, one can safely say, were innocent of this particular crime. Obviously, that sounds horrific and unjust.

 However, on the other hand, what will occur if Hawke helps the Circle? Either of these things:

1-Hawke will lose which is actually what happens in the game. Hawke fails to defeat the templars and all s/he accomplished was enabling some mages to escape. One might say that it was worth it but was it really?

By fighting the Templars, Hawke helped extend the conflict which means more Templars and mages fighting in the streets of Kirkwall, releasing fireballs, demons and abominations. How many innocent people who had nothing to do with this situation died in the crossfire? How many could have been saved had Hawke; with all of his/her skill; assisted the Templars in killing the mages before they could summon truly destructive powers?

Is it really worth it setting the city ablaze to save the Circle? I do not believe so. Is Hawke the Champion of Kirkwall or the Champion of Kirkwall’s Circle?

 
2-Hawke might win. In order to do so, Hawke must defeat the templars which means either killing them all or reducing them to a number where they will no longer present a threat.
Ok, you might say, they were the attackers. They deserved it. Maybe so, but once the mages have won the battle, what will happen?

Will the mages remain in the Gallows and quietly wait for the Divine to send reinforcements? That is extremely unlikely given the harsh conditions of Kirkwall’s Circle and the fact these mages just killed an army of templars.
They have no reason to believe they will be given flowers and cake once reinforcements arrive. And even if they did, it is only a matter of time until the people of Kirkwall commandeer boats and demand a justification as to why
both the Grand Cleric and the Knight Commander have been slain by magic in which case we can expect more bloodshed.

Will the mages run from the city? Possibly, a few might but I doubt the majority will do so. We must remember that these mages likely have families in the city that they probably miss and that even those who don't will feel empowered by this victory which might rule over their common sense.

However, we can’t really expect Kirkwall to be very welcoming to the mages after, as I said before, the Grand Cleric and Knight Commander have been slain by them in one night. Rather, the common people will likely see it as a plot by the mages to establish a new Tevinter and they will react with violence. Violence that the City Guard will find itself unable to curb given the fact they are not used to fighting mages.

More fighting ensues, more lives are lost, the rotten Veil will lead to more demons passing through and either the non-mages will kill every mage they can find or the mages will reach the conclusion the only way for them to be safe in the city is to rule it. Meanwhile, the Divine calls for an Exalted March and raises Kirkwall to the ground.
 

[LobselVith8]

You aren't fighting against the status quo at the end of DA2 though. You are fighting against an injustice commited against innocents. You can be staunchly pro-Templar or pro-Circle and still side against Meredith in the end of DA2.

I wonder if Dragon Age Keep will have an option to reflect this aspect of the Champion, since I know some players opposed Meredith, but agreed with the Chantry controlled Circles.

[Dean_the_Young]

JB, I actually agree with a number of your points, starting with the body count and moving down. I certainly don't think resistance has any clear line to 'victory' by any meaningful standard in the context of Kirkwall, and I agree there are legitimate grounds, moral even, to side with Meredith: the Annulment will happen whether you oppose it or not, and managing the consequences matters. It exists, and Meredith and Anders give no good solution. For all I could say 'the Templars should have cut down mundanes, not mages', the truth was they were going to be  doing the other.

 

In what follows, I'll explain why opposing it was correct even from the perspective of an otherwise overwhelming pro-Templar. I believe I killed Anders, but if I hadn't I'm sure he would have been surprised what I actually told.

 

(Edit- when I say 'correct', I mean one consistent and acceptable in moral and practical terms- not as in 'all others are wrong.)

 

 

I'll start with a brief foundation of my ethics. I believe in general consequence-related greater good morality, and I believe that it comes from good systems, not good people. A good person can affect a system and make it better, but a good person can not replace a system: people die, institutions live on, and so in many respects preserving a good system is better in the long term than compromising it to avoid short term losses.

 

My loose definition of a good society is one which gives allows good individuals be good, seek reforms, and live safe as long as they follow the rules of society: such a society is worth dying for, and allowing many other to die as well (or, possibly, killing them). In Thedas, the Circle can be a good system: mundanes are safe from bad mages, and mages are generally safe from bad mundanes. Free? No. But that's not what underpins a good system to me: freedoms can be gained through reforms over time. Mages have a way to live good lives, and seek reforms.

 

Meredith takes a good system and turns it into a bad one: one which reform could not be pursued (Meredith's paranoia), and could not be survived in by following the rules (the Annulment). When systems go bad, they tend to stay bad, and I place a very high weight on opposing such systems for the systematic effects they will have later on. Likely initial failure with immediate cost is not in and of itself a reason not to resist a bad system. I have never blamed the Kirkwall mages for fighting back against the Annullment: the way they do, sometimes, but not for resisting a bad system in the face of certain death. Just because deathtolls would be less if they didn't resist doesn't mean I feel they should. Resisting a bad system has its own merit despite the costs in any repeating game, which is what society and history is. How you handle failure can matter as much as your failure.

 

 

This feeds into why the argument of Hawke putting down the mages to lessen the casualties doesn't rule me (though I certainly use it for my Annulment playthroughs). The mages are fighting in self-defense against a bad system, and simply because I could end the struggle sooner doesn't mean I feel morally driven to: remember, I'll accept avoidable deaths in the name of the greater good of resisting a bad system.

 

 

So, your first point ended asking if it were worth letting the city burn to save the Circle? And my Champion would say... yes! As the Champion of Kirkwall, no less, because I view fighting a bad system entrenching itself in the city as having greater long-term ills. In this context, a Meredith-like system threatens chaos, and the mages were actually invested in the Circle. In a future Meredith-like system where mages have no such buy in in an established bad system, instead of incidental chaos it could be deliberate destruction. 

 

Short term costs versus long-term bad systems: if a Circle system exists in which mages can't expect to be allowed to live if they follow the rules, that's a bad system in which I can't expect mages to invest in and can morally expect them to resist. That would be a context with far greater potential danger than extended conflict in one city. Yes, future costs are hypothetical until they manifest, but they're the reason I support the Circle system in the first place.

 

 

 

 

Now, moving to your second point: the uncertainty of victory. To which I say... it actually doesn't matter to me. Not in the context of near certain defeat. In a conflict with systems, there are no single incident, but a history that is being built. In game theory, this is called repeating games, where the actions in one game can influence another. In repeating games, how you fail can be more important than victory.

 

Which, ultimately, is how I intended/expected it to go, and how I hope to manage it in my own demise: managing your fall, rather than expecting success in advance.

 

Ideally, and I use that loosely, my tactical goal would be to hold out at the Gallows for the Chantry's arrival, and my political objective would be to seek an end to the Annulment in exchange for surrender. Militarily defeating the Templars is impossible, and escape, while possible as a goal, would be a temporary reprieve and delegitimize us in my actual goal of politically challenging the bad system. Surrendering to non-Templar Chantry authorities without leaving the Circle system (represented by abandoning the Circle) is a political statement on the nature of the Bad System Meredith put in place: a variation of 'pro-Circle, but the Templars wouldn't let us' for the survivors. I would also, to the best of my ability, prevent anyone from resorting to the forbidden magics or escaping: just because I'll fight to defend mages doesn't mean I'll fight to defend the ones who break my stance. Even had Orisino not attacked, I would have fought him if I could.

 

[Of course, when I couldn't hold the Circle and the entire Circle dead, Hawke left. I rationalize that as a change of context in the defeated strategy.]

 

 

But success isn't actually expected, or even required: managing our fall for a lasting political challenge against the system is the goal. Hence why shaping the fall of the Circle, rather than its fall, is the real endgame. How we are remembered, by mundanes and other mages, is important: obviously every blood mage or fearful victim who resorts to demonic possession will weaken the case I am making, but part of my goal in siding with the losers is to help mitigate that. Be the uncompromising morality that, by being remembered as such, actually has an impact past the immediate.

 

 

 

That's why the Champion is wanted to resolve the Mage-Templar civil war in the first place, remember. The narrative I was attempting to shape was 'the Circle is not the issue, the bad system of Templar overreach is.' Which is why, were Hawke to be found, that Hawke would be very happy to try and convince the mages to return to the Circle as it should be (a good system) rather than than seek independence. To me, I wouldn't have that legitimacy over the mages if I didn't try to oppose the Templars, and to me, the Mages buy-in is the one that matters more at the moment. That's something worth a lot of people dying. That's an attempt worth dying for, and failing in the attempt despite the costs.

 

 

But, picking on your last several points, even if I do succeed, I'm not ignoring the hardship certain to follow: I just think it's preferable. Tensions with the public? I've already made my Templar viewpoint on that clear, and the masses ability to rampage against the Gallows is limited and would be self-inflicted. The Chantry arresting and treating us with a lack of cake and roses? I'm expecting indefinite solitary at best, actually.

 

 

As for your last bit, I'm afraid you went a bit off the completely unsubstantiated end there. Nothing suggests that the masses not getting the execution of the mages will lead them to tearing themselves apart to such a degree that an Exalted March will need to be called. And even they did... that would be their own responsibility. Magic wouldn't be to blame for the riots afterwards.

[Dean_the_Young]

I wonder if Dragon Age Keep will have an option to reflect this aspect of the Champion, since I know some players opposed Meredith, but agreed with the Chantry controlled Circles.

 

Since there's no default viewpoint associated with opposing the Annulment, either it would have to or the Champion's views will be irrelevant and not expressed. Which could be as simple as people claiming what they feel the Champion represents, rather than what the Champion intended.

[KaiserShep]

Dean, I think that pretty much covers why I could never have Hawke side with Meredith outside of a just-for-kicks playthrough.

[Hellion Rex]

Dreadful, isn't it?

Every time, it feels like I need to douse myself with holy water.

[Hellion Rex]

@JB, Dean: Interesting to read your points for your arguments.

[Lulupab]

@ MisterJB

 

You forget that if you side with mages you still kill blood mages and demons so when you're saying Hawke is giving free reign to mages you are wrong. Whichever side you choose Hawke will protect the people. Regardless of side chosen some mages will escape, its quite safe to assume if you side with mages all of them will escape because no sane mage would stay in Kirkwall after that, especially when their first enchanter encourages tells them to escape. After that scene you cannot see any more mage in-game.

[Dean_the_Young]

Dean, I think that pretty much covers why I could never have Hawke side with Meredith outside of a just-for-kicks playthrough.

 

Oh? I think a argument that amounts in large part to 'you'll need more people than that to suffer for my idealism before I'm uncomfortable with it' has more than enough rope to hang itself with.

 

I'd certainly hang with it to... if I (as Hawke in this case) were acting as a representative of people rather than an individual. If Hawke were Viscount of the city that would be one thing, and I'd definitely not let such idealism exist. But in this case all the responsibility I carry is as an individual. Besides, do you realize just how much slippery slope argument is in there?

 

I mean, it certainly helps that I don't know them, and probably will never have to deal with the loss. How many people in RPGs will weigh the many against the few and choose the few if they know them personally enough to identify with them? And moreover, what right do I as an individual to put any people's lives over others?

 

(Well, besides that I still coach it in greater-good arguments. I really do think Meredith's Annulment is worse for the greater good, and warrants being stopped as much as possible for the ultimate fate of mundanes.)

[renfrees]

Since there's no default viewpoint associated with opposing the Annulment, either it would have to or the Champion's views will be irrelevant and not expressed. Which could be as simple as people claiming what they feel the Champion represents, rather than what the Champion intended.

I suppose it will deal with the facts and consequences of Kirkwall rebellion, rather than its Champion's viewpoints on it.