Well obviously all bets are off once the legions of the damned come spewing from a giant portal to Hell in the sky.DAI had an extra year to fix problems like that. And if the Chantry could enforce its own laws, Cassandra would be with them still and not making the Inquisition.
Have the next game be some huge apocalypse where your chosen side becomes a war asset of some kind.
DAI had an extra year to fix problems like that. And if the Chantry could enforce its own laws, Cassandra would be with them still and not making the Inquisition.
Have the next game be some huge apocalypse where your chosen side becomes a war asset of some kind.
Actually... 95% certain that the Inquisition IS the oversight over the Chantry, Order, and the Seekers you want. The problem is that you're talking about putting one of the founding members on trial even though he is trying to do the right thing now.
It makes no sense. To be honest.
ROA or no, I hope you see how that makes no sense. Right? "Gimme a separate arm that has authority over the Order and the Chantry!" "Okay! I am hear to assist you in the military might of the Inquis-!" "Wait... YOU. You were in Kirkwall! EXPLAIN YOUR ACTIONS SER!"
I think we can safely move the conversation out of Real World and back In Setting.
In Setting, I doubt the Inquisition will have the sort of wide ranging authority some would like. The presence of Josephine strongly hints otherwise, in fact. If the Inquisition has carte blanche, like create legal definitions or try people for things no one else considers a crime, there is no need for an ambassador to negotiate with other powers.
Now, you could, in theory, have your ambassador try to negotiate for those powers, but given the state of government in Thedas, it seems unlikely that you would get them. Monarchs tend to have to be forced to give up power, and even though the Inquisitor as a person controls the Green Hand, the Inquisition as an organization needs the support of major outside powers as much as they need the Inquisition, so extortion won't be a universally effective negotiating tactic.
Again, it could happen. The writers can do whatever they want, but I don't see it as likely. Truthfully, I doubt it will even be addressed.
Actually... 95% certain that the Inquisition IS this over sight over the Chantry, Order, and the Seekers you want. The problem is that you're talking about putting one of the founding members on trial even though he is trying to do the right thing now.
It makes no sense. To be honest.
It's possible that I'll decide it's unnecessary if Cullen's loyalty and contrition are sufficient... but I'll by no means take that as a given.
I still doubt that this means one side can be completely wiped out without some larger massively sweeping changes such as magic being cut off from the World, or the dissolution or complete restructuring of the Andrastian Chantry, which I don't see happening
Given Laidlaw's reference to a "five game plan" and Inquisition only covering Ferelden and Orlais, the next games could take place in the Anderfels, Nevarra, the Free Marches, Antiva, Rivain, Tevinter, and the Qunari occupied islands of Par Vollen and Seheron. It would allow choices to matter, regionally, while focusing on other regions in the next games, where the player can be provided with other choices that impact those specific areas.
Have the next game be some huge apocalypse where your chosen side becomes a war asset of some kind.
Maker, no!
I love a good battle where I can smite my enemies and have a party atop their scattered remains, but apocalypses become extremely cheap if there are too many of them.
***Baleted***
Please, please somewhere with no Chantry.
The werewolf/Dalish thing is a weird one, because you're basically helping the cursed monsters wipe out the very group with which a treaty was made in the event of a Blight. It's been a while since I did my evil elf playthrough. Does anyone important make even the slightest stink about this at all?
Actually, you can. There are retroactive applications of the law even IRL today, just as there are reverse onuses (e.g. where you are the one that has to prove - typically at the civil burden of proof, balance of probabilities - that you did not do something).
And the further back we go historically, i.e., the more medieval the laws, the more likely it is to stumble across a retroactive law.
IIRC, only civil ex post facto laws are of consequence today, unless dealing with punitive intent. It wouldn't apply to Cullen.
Having to debate the meaning of IRL terms might get the thread closed - using them wouldn't, so long as everyone is being polite.
Anders didn't add any fire, because he wasn't a member of the Circle. As an outsider with no clear connection to the Circle, he couldn't possibly increase their crimes. Seeing as how Orsino was willing to have every mage in Kirkwall sequestered in their rooms and subject to massive and invasive searches, there was clearly time. Meredith would have every mage under her power and in a situation where they could be killed easily and quietly.Yet she chose to publicly declare they should all be exterminated, leading to a massacre in the streets of Kirkwall. Her actions were precisely what increased the danger. It wasn't just the wrong choice - it was the looney tunes choice, in complete contradiction to a great deal of evidence.
We'll have to agree to disagree on both motives and the morality of her decision. I respect your feelings on it and I understand your passion for it, but I can't agree with you.
Whether Cullen should be held accountable for the ROA is the debate and he shouldn't be. He didn't order it and once he started being attacked by mages, whether he supported it or not, his hands were tied. Meredith paid her price for her sins, as did Orsino. There were casualties of war on both sides, to single out Cullen for punishment is really pushing the envelope on not justice--but revenge.
The werewolf/Dalish thing is a weird one, because you're basically helping the cursed monsters wipe out the very group with which a treaty was made in the event of a Blight. It's been a while since I did my evil elf playthrough. Does anyone important make even the slightest stink about this at all?
Zevran opposes it, unless you coerce him into agreeing with you.
Zevran opposes it, unless you coerce him into agreeing with you.
Zevran is all about the most useful choices. He hates Harrowmont too.
Zevran is all about the most useful choices. He hates Harrowmont too.
Doesn't Zevran kill Ruck no matter what?
Doesn't Zevran kill Ruck no matter what?
Yep. Had to get a mod to stop that cause that was freaking annoying.
Doesn't Zevran kill Ruck no matter what?
Not in my game? Did I have him in my party? I think I did... maybe that fix is in one of the Zevran dialogue fixes I have.
From the wiki:
If Zevran is present, he might force the Warden to kill Ruck, saying that it is the most humane thing to do. This can be avoided, as he will only press if the Warden decides to leave instead. Oghren will also suggest that he should be killed.
Not in my game? Did I have him in my party? I think I did...
From the wiki:
It's the second time you talk to him.
It's the second time you talk to him.
Oooooooh. I didn't go back. Oops. Completely forgot about talking to his mom.
Oooooooh. I didn't go back. Oops. Completely forgot about talking to his mom.
XD I think he has an unlimited supply of mushrooms. Which is why I was not happy with Zev.
XD I think he has an unlimited supply of mushrooms. Which is why I was not happy with Zev.
Damn Zevran and his mushroom-blocking.
IIRC, only civil ex post facto laws are of consequence today, unless dealing with punitive intent. It wouldn't apply to Cullen.
We'll have to agree to disagree on both motives and the morality of her decision. I respect your feelings on it and I understand your passion for it, but I can't agree with you.
Whether Cullen should be held accountable for the ROA is the debate and he shouldn't be. He didn't order it and once he started being attacked by mages, whether he supported it or not, his hands were tied. Meredith paid her price for her sins, as did Orsino. There were casualties of war on both sides, to single out Cullen for punishment is really pushing the envelope on not justice--but revenge.
Fair enough, re: Meredith. 
As a practical matter, it's hard to talk about what Cullen is responsible for because we don't know very much of his timeline. Clearly defending himself isn't the same thing as carrying out a wholesale slaughter, though one might argue he's defending himself by encroaching mage positions to carry out the ROA, so he's really the aggressor. It's all messy.
The reality is that we don't really see what happens, so it's hard to judge. He's willing to allow mages to surrender, though that means tranquility for them.
You mean the common law, right (or are you in a civil code country)? My point was just that retroactivity is not quite the absolute bar people think it is; powerful people always make exceptions for their enemies. I think The Wolf Among Us had a very apt situation in Episode 5, if you played the game.
Fair enough, re: Meredith.
As a practical matter, it's hard to talk about what Cullen is responsible for because we don't know very much of his timeline. Clearly defending himself isn't the same thing as carrying out a wholesale slaughter, though one might argue he's defending himself by encroaching mage positions to carry out the ROA, so he's really the aggressor. It's all messy.
The reality is that we don't really see what happens, so it's hard to judge. He's willing to allow mages to surrender, though that means tranquility for them.
I have got to get The Wolf Among Us. My friends keep telling me to get it and I have been meaning to, but I just keep putting it off.
I don't believe Cullen is the aggressor, again agree to disagree! Also, if you don't agree with Cullen, it still might be interesting to have him as an adviser. Seeing the conflict of your decisions would present great insight with dialog. Though I don't like it when companions disagree with every single thing I do (I am looking at you, Aveline) I do like it when they show some conflict. It would be pretty boring if everyone just agreed with everything you did or represented or shared all of your convictions.
I have got to get The Wolf Among Us. My friends keep telling me to get it and I have been meaning to, but I just keep putting it off.
I don't believe Cullen is the aggressor, again agree to disagree! Also, if you don't agree with Cullen, it still might be interesting to have him as an adviser. Seeing the conflict of your decisions would present great insight with dialog. Though I don't like it when companions disagree with every single thing I do (I am looking at you, Aveline) I do like it when they show some conflict. It would be pretty boring if everyone just agreed with everything you did or represented or shared all of your convictions.
I've seen the scenes with Cullen and the 3 mages now, and I'll admit I was very unfair in how I characterized his views. We never see his reaction through the mage ending, but with the templars...
1) He outright opposes the ROA.
2) He argues against executing any mage who surrenders.
3) When pushed by Meredith (that it is impossible to tell if a mage is a blood mage), Cullen argues that it is better to suffer through the risk of protecting an innocent.
The end for those mages is still bad (tranquility, though Cullen doesn't see tranquility as such a terrible fate). Still, it's a thorny issue.
I think Cullen is morally culpable if he goes through with the killing, but I certainly see the defense.
I've seen the scenes with Cullen and the 3 mages now, and I'll admit I was very unfair in how I characterized his views. We never see his reaction through the mage ending, but with the templars...
1) He outright opposes the ROA.
2) He argues against executing any mage who surrenders.
3) When pushed by Meredith (that it is impossible to tell if a mage is a blood mage), Cullen argues that it is better to suffer through the risk of protecting an innocent.
The end for those mages is still bad (tranquility, though Cullen doesn't see tranquility as such a terrible fate). Still, it's a thorny issue.
I think Cullen is morally culpable if he goes through with the killing, but I certainly see the defense.
Yes, he also states he will accept responsibility for them if they can be spared. He talks about the ROA in Fereldan and how some mages were saved, and how he hopes that can be the case in Kirkwall, IIRC. He also demands the templars listen to Hawke and release the mages.
To be honest, I don't see tranquility as a bad thing in relation to bloodmages and the such. I think it's a consequence of an action, if the mage chooses the action, they choose the consequence by default. Though, I do not support it for mages who have done nothing at all. It is a thorny issue, I agree. Cullen isn't the big bad here and he is willing to give up everything to help the Inquisition.
Yes, he also states he will accept responsibility for them if they can be spared. He talks about the ROA in Fereldan and how some mages were saved, and how he hopes that can be the case in Kirkwall, IIRC. He also demands the templars listen to Hawke and release the mages.
To be honest, I don't see tranquility as a bad thing in relation to bloodmages and the such. I think it's a consequence of an action, if the mage chooses the action, they choose the consequence by default. Though, I do not support it for mages who have done nothing at all. It is a thorny issue, I agree. Cullen isn't the big bad here and he is willing to give up everything to help the Inquisition.
What I'm curious about... my Hawke would have ordered him to stand down and allow all the remaining mages of the Circle to leave Kirkwall. Would he have acceded to this?
What I'm curious about... my Hawke would have ordered him to stand down and allow all the remaining mages of the Circle to leave Kirkwall. Would he have acceded to this?
Do you mean the mages he allowed to live, or all the mages in the Circle? Even the ones fighting? I doubt he would do that. I know I wouldn't have. It's complete conjecture though. Are you going to base guilt of wrongdoing on something he may have done or not done?
Do you mean the mages he allowed to live, or all the mages in the Circle? Even the ones fighting? I doubt he would do that. I know I wouldn't have. It's complete conjecture though. Are you going to base guilt of wrongdoing on something he may have done or not done?
I'm not pronouncing anything right now, merely asking a question. My order would be for the entire Annulment to cease immediately and for the templars to withdraw. The ones fighting, after all, would have been doing so out of self-defense.
Retour en haut