111 réponses à ce sujet

[DesstinyMaker]

I just finished playing Dragon Age II as a mage with revolutionary ideas not much less extreme than that of her lover, Anders.  Although I don't personally think my Champion's decisions were entirely ethical (she not only let Anders live, but ran away with him) they did follow a very particular internal logic to its bitter end.

 

Today I began playing around with a new rogue who would romance Fenris instead and side with the Templars, but I am having a really difficult time coming up with an internal logic for this character that makes any sense. In the last game, it was easy; my sibling was Carver, I didn't like him and he didn't like me, he ended up as a Grey Warden and his sensibilities had no bearing on my decisions.  However, with Bethany as my sibling, I've got a real dilemma.

 

I've been helping my family hide Bethany her entire life. I have always, always been the accomplice of an apostate mage. As we settle down in Kirkwall, I will essentially be the accomplice of three apostate mages. For years and years, I will help all three of them hide their homes from the templars and take them on quests, whether I agree with them or not.  I can tell Merrill and Anders that they are wrong, and create rivalries with them, sure. But here's the kicker: my sister is a mage. If she's in the Circle and I side with the templars, she will die. Since I helped Anders find the ingredients for the explosives, I helped him blow up the Chantry. Even if I don't know they were explosives, I do know that Anders is an abomination with revolution on his mind.

 

I have spend my life aiding and abetting apostates, including the one who blows up the Chantry. However, the people who will die for his crime are law-abiding Circle Mages who have done nothing wrong, and one of them may be my sister, if she's not already dead or off with the Wardens.  What possible internal logic could I have for siding with those who wish to kill people like my sister for a crime they did not commit?

 

(I've played a rogue Hawke once before, but she sided with the mages after sticking a knife in Ander's back. This pro-templar thing is new territory; it's only my third time to play it.)

 

Executing Anders for betraying my trust and being a general murderous schmuck is not a dilemma, (although I can see how keeping him alive makes him a lot more useful in the final fight) but annulling the Circle under these circumstances is just not a scenario I can comprehend. I can't even see annulling the Ferelden Circle as justified, and it's actually been completely overrun with demons and abominations.  Can anybody give me some ideas as to why a Hawke who isn't ridiculously evil and hypocritical could even contemplate such a thing?

[Beerfish]

Did you just put aside the 10,000 blood mages and abominations in DA2?  There is your answer.  Even if Meredith is crazy and some of the Templars are from not nice to evil you simply can't ignore the massive problems regarding the circle in Kirkwall, the leadership (who was much worse than even Meredith thought) and the proliferation of bad things coming from mages.

 

In a perfect world you would have time to sort through each mage, determine their guilt or innocence and make moves that way, Anders essentially takes this option away if it ever was there. 

[Zombie_Alexis]

I was only able to do this once, because it means doing a lot more internal arguments as to why your Hawke would do such a thing. My play through was with a Warrior Hawke who romanced Fenris. I made pretty much neutral choices throughout the first act and at the end of it, I took Bethany with me on the Deep Roads expedition, without Anders (I think you could do this with Anders as well) and my Hawke came to the conclusion that Bethany would have been kept safe if she had been in the Circle. So her motivation came to be that in order to keep mages and non-mages safe, the circle was necessary. You can have a great conversation about this in the first act with Fenris the first time you go to the Gallows, just don't bring Bethany with you. (Bring Anders or Merrill though, especially if you want to rival them. There's some really good reactions.) You can actually get some good arguments from Meredith about why order is needed during the opening scene of Act 3, so stick to your guns when Orsino argues his side. The only real problem is at the end when Meredith goes bonkers and wants to go through with the annulment. I basically went through with the Templars to keep the Mages safe. (And if I remember correctly, Cullen does the same.) It takes a bit of mental acrobatics to do this (and it's one of the flaws of the game) but you can get through with a relatively satisfactory ending.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Without Bethany in the Circle, I side with Meredith. Hawke and Orsino both know that the RoA is justifiable by virtue of the events of Best Served Cold -- Grace, an abomination of pride (same as Uldred, for whom the Fereldan Templars invoked the Right), got loose and corrupted who knows how many mages and/or taught them blood-magic. If there are any more of them in the Circle, they have to be slaughtered. If just a handful of them go loose (actually, they already are loose while you're playing the final mission), they'll kill many more innocents than any that die in the process of the annulment.

 

 

If Bethany is in the Circle then this is all moot, because then I care about saving my own kin over defending the public. I would not call that good of me, though.

[Dean_the_Young]

There are a couple different lines of logic you can use- the morality of them is debatable, but the logic itself can be consistent. First and foremost is to avoid putting your Hawke as the initiator of what is to occur and instead see them as reacting to something that is already going to exist.

 

When you get down to it, the question of whether to annul the Circle or not is not actually in Hawke's power to determine. The massacre is going to occur regardless: Hawke's opposition against the Templars will simply draw it out, and Hawke's participation against the Mages will reach the end point faster. Come the next day, the Circle will be in flames, nearly all the mages inside dead, and Templars will ultimately control the city regardless.

 

Again, Hawke's involvement doesn't change this. Even the most pro-Mage Hawke in the canonical multiverse of potential playthroughs can't stop this.

 

Instead of taking the responsibility for the Annulment, let other considerations and prospects for the future take part. Things like the cost of the battle itself (the sooner it ends, the less time and opportunities for desperate mages and battle to harm the city), the public concern (the civilian cost for expanding the conflict in the city), or even Hawke's own prospects and ambitions. Hawke is, by Act 3, a leading contender for taking leadership of the city, a position from which Hawke could conceivably make changes to prevent such an incident in the future. Siding with the Mages and either being killed or forced to flee won't help you make reforms for the future mages and city- siding with Meredith can. Even, or especially, if you want to gain the power to bring her to account.

[TheMadHarridan]

I have actually played a Pro-Templar character with Bethany in the Circle. It's not great, but it's not as horrible as it could be depending on your choices. When you reach Orsino and he reveals his plans to kill Hawke, Bethany vehemently objects, reminding Orsino that he promised not to hurt Hawke. Orsino obviously doesn't keep his promise, and when he reveals his involvement with Quentin the Psychopath, Bethany is none too pleased. She will fight with you against Orsino. Now, once the fight is over, Bethany's fate is in your hands. You can let Meredith kill her, you can kill her (I think), or you can spare Bethany, who will join your team for the final battle (if you choose to use her). I spared her because there was no way I was going to let Bethany die.

 

Basically, to me, one of the biggest reasons you can use for rationalizing supporting the Templars is revealed by both Meredith ("The people will demand blood.") and by Hawke (I believe it's during the discussion with Merrill when she objects to killing the mages.). Supporting the Templars will result in far less bloodshed in the long run. The people will rise up and revolt against the mages because a mage killed the Grand Cleric. They will want justice against all the mages, not just Anders. Mob mentality is a dangerous, powerful thing. The people of Kirkwall have been told for years that mages are untrustworthy and inherently evil. I'm not saying all people in Kirkwall agree with this, but I'm willing to bet a large majority will/do, especially with all of the mage tensions at this point in the story anyway.

 

Also, when you support the Templars, you actually have a chance to spare mages you might not have been able to save had you been Pro-Mage. There is a small group of mages that beg for mercy fairly soon after the battle starts. You can choose to spare them, and Cullen will support you. Meredith will be angry, but she will allow them to live.

[congokong]

@TheMadHarridan

 

I'm not a fan of the "placating an unjust mentality" method of dealing with things although I can see the rationale behind it. In this case I'm referring to sacrificing the Circle like lambs to appease the fearful/angry non-mages of Kirkwall even though it's outright murder. If you play the statistics/ends-justify-the-means game in the "long run" it may save more lives. I use quotes on that word because no person can see down the line which path will actually save more lives decades or centuries from now. All you can do is act honorably. I feel ends-justify-the-means scenarios should only be used when the threat is immediate and the costs are certain. I don't feel the Grand Cleric's death being appeased by slaughtering the Circle is such a case.

 

This whole thing reminds me of a situation in Mass Effect 2 for those who have played the series where the protagonist Commander Shepard saves the galaxy at the cost of a batarian colony. Shepard is sold out to the Batarians to appease them even if it's unjust because they'll want blood.

[TheMadHarridan]

@congokong

 

Oh, I'm not saying I agree with "placating an unjust mentality." If the situation in Kirkwall happened in real life, I'd be arguing for the salvation of the mages because killing them all as a result of Anders' actions is murder and wrong (which is the mentality most of my Pro-Mage Hawkes have). But with the Hawke I used who was Pro-Templar, "stopping the mob in the hopes of saving more people in the long run" was basically the reasoning my character had for agreeing to help the Templars annul the Circle.

[congokong]

@congokong

 

Oh, I'm not saying I agree with "placating an unjust mentality." If the situation in Kirkwall happened in real life, I'd be arguing for the salvation of the mages because killing them all as a result of Anders' actions is murder and wrong (which is the mentality most of my Pro-Mage Hawkes have). But with the Hawke I used who was Pro-Templar, "stopping the mob in the hopes of saving more people in the long run" was basically the reasoning my character had for agreeing to help the Templars annul the Circle.

 

I know what you mean. When I role-play a character I try to also role-play their justification for their actions. I can't just play a character that does evil things for the sake of doing evil things in a rpg. I mean I can but I cannot get into the character in that case. I need my character to justify it in their minds even if I don't actually agree with it. It's strange.

[Lhawke]

There are some interesting ideas in this thread. I did start to play a pro templar mage just for a different playthrough.

 

Surprisingly I found diplomatic pro templar mage Hawke an interesting character to play. I never finished it because I couldn't find any reason why my mage would agree to the annulment.

 

Then there is the difficulty of being an apostate with apostate associates including a blood mage. Dialogue to try to persuade them to turn themselves in would have been helpful. Then there is the problem of being an apostate herself, I suppose intending to join the circle and the right moment in time would have to do.

 

Pity she couldn't be offered the job of first enchanter and rebuilding the circle at the end.

[General TSAR]

(Monotone voice) In the chaos of the Mage Rebellion, Kirkwall needs a capable and ruthless ruler in order to prevent further anarchy.

 

The Templars are the largest paramilitary organization that can establish order and security, being the viscount of Kirkwall would need the loyalty of the order.

 

My non-canon mage sided with the Templar Order, and she will rule Kirkwall with the help of the Templars, she would be a candidate that strives for reconciliation for apostates who are not involved in crimes against the people and have not practiced blood magic. 

 

This is a satisfactory outcome. 

[KaiserShep]

It was easier to side with Templars in DAO. I think it was a more complicated scenario then.

 

The Templars had far better examples in DA:O. The worst that I can recall off the top of my head are Cullen, who is understandably traumatized, and Rylock in Awakening, who has the gall to think that she can relieve anyone from the command of the Warden-Commander, particularly during what could very well be a Blight-lite. Ser Alrik and Ser Kerras alone make the Templars seem like a rotten bunch. As for who to side with, in DA:O, it was easier in that if you side with the mages, you are not really opposing the Templars, but doing them a favor in making the rite of annulment unnecessary, since Greagoir would rather avoid killing the mages. Of course there's the other stuff like whether or not to help the Mage Collective, but even then, you still have a mage-friendly Templar in Redcliffe (probably tripping on that lyrium).

[Exaltation]

The sad thing the reason for the ROA is "the people will demand retribution",so basically Anders destroys the Chantry with innocent people inside,nobles want all Mages to die for Anders's crime and then reward you with being the Viscount/ess even if you're a Mage.

 

Now if Templar destroys the Chantry no one will go killing the Templars lol,they would just cover it as "unfortunate incident,Templar had Lyrium overdose,went crazy".

 

People would take tyrant Templars over any good Mage,except Hawke that is.

 

Conclusion: hypocrites, hypocrites everywhere.

 

The problem is the Templars/Chantry have too much influence,and as long as they keep Mages in check people would turn a blind eye to anything they do.

[Exaltation]

Well Lambert was the leader of the Seekers,and he was an extreme Pro-Templar,he separated the Seekers and Templars from the Chantry so they now do as they please with Mages without Chantry authority.

 

Cassandra and Leliana with other Seekers that stayed loyal to the Chantry are trying to restore order,as seen in the end of DA2,and basically what we gonna do in DAI by restoring the Inquisition.

[KaiserShep]

It would've been interesting to see how that story could have possibly played out if Viscount Hawke didn't leave Kirkwall. But, I imagine that would also require a lot of restructuring of the story, namely getting rid of the framed narrative, or at least having it not take place within the city.

[Kreator_Wrex]

The Templars and Circle are both lead by completely incompetent dingbats. That's the only problem, the fact that Meredith runs Kirkwall only makes things worse. A circle mage Bethany and Templar Carver are really just being a couple of brown nosers, really it's Orsino and Meredith that are the problem with Kirkwall. You know I really enjoyed slicing and dicing them to their graves but the fact still remains, Orsino is just sitting on the sidelines watching as the chaos ensues, while Meredith is a complete psychopath by Act III and has bitten of more than she can chew. If your question is of the morality of siding with the Templars, the question you should be asking is the morality of siding with Meredith. We can see that Meredith is now a complete psychopath who has bitten off more than she can chew, so siding with her would seem to be very twitchy from where I'm standing but really if we are associating Meredith with everything Templar and Orsino with everything mage, by that logic, what's the moral implication of siding with the mages? To me, I really can't see the difference between Meredith and Orsino, the only difference is one of them wants to solve a problem that she doesn't have a damn clue on how to solve and the other wants to refuse that a problem even exists in the first place.

[KaiserShep]

We can see that Meredith is now a complete psychopath who has bitten off more than she can chew, so siding with her would seem to be very twitchy from where I'm standing but really if we are associating Meredith with everything Templar and Orsino with everything mage, by that logic, what's the moral implication of siding with the mages? To me, I really can't see the difference between Meredith and Orsino, the only difference is one of them wants to solve a problem that she doesn't have a damn clue on how to solve and the other wants to refuse that a problem even exists in the first place.

 

From my own perspective, it's not so much about these two individuals, but rather the people behind them. Basically, it boils down to whether or not I want to support the enforcers in executing people who had nothing to do with the act that got this ball rolling in the first place. At the moment the Right is invoked, I have to decide whether or not the act of a single mage warrants killing all of them.

[Dean_the_Young]

Since it's not your decision whether they'll die or not, that's not quite the choice facing you. You can aid or your can oppose the massacre, but you can't prevent it.

[MagicalMaster]

Er, no, you can absolutely prevent a good chunk of it, at least, if you support the mages.  There's a line in the ending which references how a bunch of mages escaped.

[Dean_the_Young]

Er, no, you can absolutely prevent a good chunk of it, at least, if you support the mages.  There's a line in the ending which references how a bunch of mages escaped.

 

Two points.

 

1) The ex-post facto review would be metagaming, which would be logically invalid in the frame of reference being raised. Hawke has no basis to believe they will escape the annullment alive, let alone save many mages in doing so.

 

2) The survival of mages doesn't challenge what I said: that the massacre occurs regardless. Hawke can attempt to limit the extent of the massacre (and Hawke can do that even if you support the annulment), but Hawke can not prevent a massacre from occurring.

 

Hawke and the player are not faced with a delimma of permitting a massacre to occur or not: Hawke has no say in it. The dilemma is your response to reality of the upcoming massacre, without any evidence or basis (past player ego) that your support will shape the outcome one way or the other.

[MagicalMaster]

1) The ex-post facto review would be metagaming, which would be logically invalid in the frame of reference being raised. Hawke has no basis to believe they will escape the annullment alive, let alone save many mages in doing so.

Er, no, in that case your original statement of "Since it's not your decision whether they'll die or not, that's not quite the choice facing you. You can aid or you can oppose the massacre, but you can't prevent it" is meta-gaming.  Hawke has no GUARANTEE that he'll escape the annulment, but bringing the champion of Kirkwall plus six of the most powerful (combat wise) people in the city can easily tip the scales -- remember that the Templars are still going up against a small army of mages in the first place.  It's a distinct possibility that the mages could win with that extra support.  Not in the long term with Templar reinforcements, no, but long enough to escape.

Or, in other words, your original statement would have to be

 

"Since it's not your decision whether the templars will ATTEMPT to kill the mages, that's not quite the choice facing you. You can aid or you can oppose the templars, but you can't prevent them from TRYING to carry about the rite of annulment."

 

2) The survival of mages doesn't challenge what I said: that the massacre occurs regardless. Hawke can attempt to limit the extent of the massacre (and Hawke can do that even if you support the annulment), but Hawke can not prevent a massacre from occurring.

 

There's no evidence to suggest Hawke could attempt to limit the extend of the massacre when making the choice to suppose the templars or mages, so THAT is meta-gaming.  On top of that, a massacre of half the mages with Hawke fighting for the mages is very different from a massacre of 95% of the mages with Hawke fighting for the Templars.

 

Hawke and the player are not faced with a delimma of permitting a massacre to occur or not: Hawke has no say in it. The dilemma is your response to reality of the upcoming massacre, without any evidence or basis (past player ego) that your support will shape the outcome one way or the other.

 

Your group already managed to defeat two Qunari mages, like a dozen Quanari warriors, AND the Arishok all at once with just four people -- and that was three years ago (or, alternatively, Hawke was able to take out the Arishok solo).  Now you have even more years of harsh training, better equipment, and potentially EIGHT people (counting Hawke) on your side plus all the mages.

 

Hawke and his crew are badasses -- how many templars do you think it would take to kill a high dragon?  A small army.  Then consider that Hawke's crew has zero casualties while doing so.

 

So there is plenty of reason to think your support can shape the outcome.  It's still possible you could be wrong about winning but Hawke's crew of 8 could take on like 50-100 templars alone -- and that's not counting the mage support.

[Dean_the_Young]

Er, no, in that case your original statement of "Since it's not your decision whether they'll die or not, that's not quite the choice facing you. You can aid or you can oppose the massacre, but you can't prevent it" is meta-gaming.  Hawke has no GUARANTEE that he'll escape the annulment, but bringing the champion of Kirkwall plus six of the most powerful (combat wise) people in the city can easily tip the scales -- remember that the Templars are still going up against a small army of mages in the first place.  It's a distinct possibility that the mages could win with that extra support.  Not in the long term with Templar reinforcements, no, but long enough to escape.

Or, in other words, your original statement would have to be

 

"Since it's not your decision whether the templars will ATTEMPT to kill the mages, that's not quite the choice facing you. You can aid or you can oppose the templars, but you can't prevent them from TRYING to carry about the rite of annulment."

 

There's no real try as a question of possibility involved, on a relative or metagaming level: Annulling the Circle is well within the ability of the Templars, and everyone knows it. Meredith knows it, Orisino knows it, Anders is counting on it, and Hawke's dialogue acknowledges it as well. The Circle can be annulled, is going to be annulled, and ultimately is annulled. Hawke doesn't prevent that, even if you side with the mages: more escape than otherwise, but a massacre happens regardless. No one in the game, Hawke or company or otherwise, pretends otherwise. There is no 'tipping the scales' to prevent a massacre beyond your own invention- in the end, Hawke and Co don't even fight their way out.

 

And do you really want to quibble semantics? Your argument already assumes that I was referring to all mages- that's projecting. You'll have to dig yourself out of that hole first.

 

 

 

There's no evidence to suggest Hawke could attempt to limit the extend of the massacre when making the choice to suppose the templars or mages, so THAT is meta-gaming.  On top of that, a massacre of half the mages with Hawke fighting for the mages is very different from a massacre of 95% of the mages with Hawke fighting for the Templars.

 

 

Er, what? Either you're misunderstanding what I said, or you're arguing on a tangent. Either way your rebuttal is aiming at something that isn't there: the point is that a massacre is going to occur regardless, not that Hawke can aim to make it less by prior intent.

 

I certainly do agree that there is a significant difference between Hawke fighting for the mages and Hawke fighting for the Templars. The difference isn't that mages are going to be massacred, which leaves the other things to be the relevant focus of reasons.

 

 

Your group already managed to defeat two Qunari mages, like a dozen Quanari warriors, AND the Arishok all at once with just four people -- and that was three years ago (or, alternatively, Hawke was able to take out the Arishok solo).  Now you have even more years of harsh training, better equipment, and potentially EIGHT people (counting Hawke) on your side plus all the mages.

 

 

In the same fight, Anders can survive being repeatedly impaled by spears and the Arishoks swords, but then die from a tiny knife to the kidney. Are you sure that's the sort of gameplay mechanics you want to use as story basis?
 

 

Hawke and his crew are badasses -- how many templars do you think it would take to kill a high dragon?  A small army.  Then consider that Hawke's crew has zero casualties while doing so.

 

 

 

I believe Cassandra killed a Dragon solo while fighting four dragons, a high dragon, and a Pride abomination after defeating a Templar Knight Commander, (iirc the events from Dawn of the Seeker), so...
 

 

So there is plenty of reason to think your support can shape the outcome.  It's still possible you could be wrong about winning but Hawke's crew of 8 could take on like 50-100 templars alone -- and that's not counting the mage support.

 

Of course, there are far more than 50-100 templars alone, and as we ultimately see they are well able to cut through the mage support.

 

Or, alternatively, Hawke could enter a cutscene and be taken down by a single Templar archer. Or the the game mechanics and scripting could spawn an unbeatable Templar who takes no damage. Or whatever else the plot requires for its point.

 

Considering that narrative makes no pretenses before or during or after the Annullment that Hawke and co can prevent the Templar victory at the Gallows, I'll go with that. Hawke's victory is symbolic, not tactical, and pased on survival and not prevention.