112 réponses à ce sujet

[Ariella]

And this is a defence for child murder and the murder of innocent mages he conducted during DA2? There was no torture involved in this case. He could have easily decided to resign from his post because killing all mages based on the actions of one individual is wrong but he didn't. He went through with it and potentially killed children as young as six years old in the process. Maybe if the children he killed were your sons and daughters, you may feel differently. Child murder for me is unacceptable but if you're cool with that, that's up to you.

Oh stop already. As I said, Cullen didn't think the rite was needed in Kirkwall and there was still a chance to save the circle. When presented with three mages who've surrendered he's willing to let them go free and take responsibility for their actions than kill them and be wrong.

And Cullen and others attack the Gallows after Meredith declares the Rite. He calls for her stand down when she attempt to kill Hawke. He also spares Alain during Best Served Cold should you ask. Cullen's horrified when he is presented with the information about Ser Alrik.

Unless you can provide a non star wars reference to Cullen killing children when he disapproved of the rite, had serious doubts as to whom he was surving: the order or Meredith, and feels that a tenplar's duty is also to PROTECT mages. Please do so.

[Ariella]

Indeed.
 
Blackwall: Cole, if you knew what I am, what I'd done, why didn't you tell the others?
Cole: Everyone hides dead things.  Everyone pretends.  You wanted to fix it.
Blackwall: I'm a murderer.
Cole: You don't want to be.  You made a new you.  You are Blackwall. You killed Rainier.
Blackwall: If only that were possible.
Cole: You would stand between Rainier and the carriage. But you can't.  It doesn't work like that.  So you carry the bodies to remember.
Blackwall: I suppose I do.

Blackwall's situation reminds me of a character from Codex Alera. His resolution is much similar.

I don't romance him, but I like the character.

[Illegitimus]

And this is a defence for child murder and the murder of innocent mages he conducted during DA2? There was no torture involved in this case. He could have easily decided to resign from his post because killing all mages based on the actions of one individual is wrong but he didn't. He went through with it and potentially killed children as young as six years old in the process. Maybe if the children he killed were your sons and daughters, you may feel differently. Child murder for me is unacceptable but if you're cool with that, that's up to you. 

 

Well no.  He couldn't easily have decided to resign from his post in the middle of a rite of annulment.  He could have deserted at that point and maybe should have, but it wouldn't be easy.  And an argument can be made that not deserting would give him a chance to save some of the innocent mages such as the three mages who try to surrender.  The idea that he, himself, kills any children is both hypothetical and unlikely.  Being part of a military force that has been ordered to commit an atrocity is a difficult situation, the more so when the atrocity is perfectly legal and mandated by the laws and culture of the time.  He does resist, which more than most would do.  

[The_Shade]

Cullen was AGAINST the rite in DA 2. He though Kirkwall could still be saved. If Hawke sides with the Templars and deals with the three mages who surrender Meredith asks Cullen if the prisoners are freed then turn out to be blood mages would he take responsibility for it? He says he would, because he believes that's what being a templar is about.

And stop using the term genocide. It's an insult to people who suffered due to real life genocide attempts and their families, and those who died from them.

The rite is not genocIde.

 

My intention was never to cause offence especially not to the dead, so I'll apologize immediately for any 

offence precipitated. 

 

No he wasn't. He participated in the rite until the final confrontation with Hawke. 

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Cullen- It states "Cullen and the other templars attack the 

Gallows after Meredith invokes the Right of Annulment. 

 

Furthermore, if Hawke doesn't side with Templars and decides to side with the mages that option isn't 

available. We know he attacks mages from Kirkwall's circle and the wiki states that the majority of them 

were killed. Considering this, this is clear & compelling evidence to suggest that Cullen was involved in the attack

on the Kirkwall circle of magi which involves the murder of a large number of innocent mages who had no 

association with Anders except the fact that they were mages.

 

Given too, that mages in the Kirkwall circle of magi can be as young as six years old - he may well of killed children too. 

http://dragonage.wik.../Circle_of_Magi- The Circle is allowed to take in any child (usually age six 

to twelve) from their families as soon as they show magical ability.  

 

So you may argue that Cullen was acting out of character in DAO but given that he was involved 

in killing mages that had no ties with Anders and had no intention to harm anyone. I don't like him

because to me, those mages were innocent. 

 

All I'm doing is explaining why I dislike Cullen. That's my only intention, not to disrespect 

the dead or anyone for that matter. 

[The_Shade]

Well no.  He couldn't easily have decided to resign from his post in the middle of a rite of annulment.  He could have deserted at that point and maybe should have, but it wouldn't be easy.  And an argument can be made that not deserting would give him a chance to save some of the innocent mages such as the three mages who try to surrender.  The idea that he, himself, kills any children is both hypothetical and unlikely.  Being part of a military force that has been ordered to commit an atrocity is a difficult situation the more so when the atrocity is perfectly legal and mandated by the laws and culture of the time.  He does resist, which more than most would do.  

 

I'll accept that it wasn't easy, I'll concede that given the circumstances. That was a mistake on my part and I appreciate your correction. 

 

My argument is that he should have deserted given the commands involved harming innocent mages, preferably beforehand (I'm not a fan of the Templar order in general it seems). As stated in the post above, there is clear evidence from Dragon Age wiki that he was indeed involved in the attack and therefore almost certainly involved in killing mages that held no ties to Anders whatsoever. It's possible that he killed children given that mages in the circle can be as young as six and may have attacked him as a means to defend themselves. It isn't certain since he may not have come across any children during the rebellion but, very much possible given we know that he did attack the Gallows and that children with magical abilities are within all circles of magi.

[Iakus]

 

Furthermore, if Hawke doesn't side with Templars and decides to side with the mages that option isn't 

available. We know he attacks mages from Kirkwall's circle and the wiki states that the majority of them 

were killed. Considering this, this is clear & compelling evidence to suggest that Cullen was involved in the attack

on the Kirkwall circle of magi which involves the murder of a large number of innocent mages who had no 

association with Anders except the fact that they were mages.

 

Given too, that mages in the Kirkwall circle of magi can be as young as six years old - he may well of killed children too. 

http://dragonage.wik.../Circle_of_Magi- The Circle is allowed to take in any child (usually age six 

to twelve) from their families as soon as they show magical ability.  

 

Hawke siding with the mages covers the escape of many of them, as Varric states in the epilogue.  It would make sense that those who escaped would primarily be noncombatants (such as the three who surrender) and kids.

 

That Cullen participated in the attack is not in dispute.  That innocent mages died is also quite likely.  And talking to Cullen in DAI shows that what happened in Kirkwall bothered him a lot, to the point where he jumped at the chance to leave.  But there is zero evidence to say that Cullen murdered any mages who surrendered, and certainly not children.

[The_Shade]

Hawke siding with the mages covers the escape of many of them, as Varric states in the epilogue.  It would make sense that those who escaped would primarily be noncombatants (such as the three who surrender) and kids.

 

That Cullen participated in the attack is not in dispute.  That innocent mages died is also quite likely.  And talking to Cullen in DAI shows that what happened in Kirkwall bothered him a lot, to the point where he jumped at the chance to leave.  But there is zero evidence to say that Cullen murdered any mages who surrendered, and certainly not children.

 

I never suggested that he murdered mages that surrendered, the incident that takes place if you side with the Templars suggests that he wouldn't kill mages that gave in. So I think you're right. 

 

All I'm arguing is that it is almost certain that he killed mages who felt forced to defend themselves from templars who were ordered to kill mages part of the circle of magi because of the rite. That to me, is unacceptable. The vast majority of the mages did absolutely nothing wrong and were only killed because of the actions of one individual or demon. That's why I dislike Cullen, for taking part in an incident that according to DAI wiki killed the majority of the Kirkwall circle of magi. 

 

I understand some people like him and I can see some of his better characteristics (especially in DAI) and I don't mean any disrespect to them or their views. If I have caused offence to anyone on this forum I've addressed I sincerely apologize. Their entitled to their views and I respect them even though we may disagree at times. For me though, find it extremely hard to forgive him especially if one of those mages was a family or friend.    

 

It's possible that Cullen didn't kill children but, it is also possible he did considering children make up part of the circle of magi. I know I cannot prove this but it remains a possibility if those children felt they need to defend themselves from templars. I hope he didn't however, I cannot rule it out for certain based on the information I've read on Dragon Age wiki. 

[Iakus]

I never suggested that he murdered mages that surrendered, the incident that takes place if you side with the Templars suggests that he wouldn't kill mages that gave in. So I think you're right. 

 

All I'm arguing is that it is almost certain that he killed mages who felt forced to defend themselves from templars who were ordered to kill mages part of the circle of magi because of the rite. That to me, is unacceptable. The vast majority of the mages did absolutely nothing wrong and were only killed because of the actions of one individual or demon. That's why I dislike Cullen, for taking part in an incident that according to DAI wiki killed the majority of the Kirkwall circle of magi. 

 

I understand some people like him and I can see some of his better characteristics (especially in DAI) and I don't mean any disrespect to them or their views. If I have caused offence to anyone on this forum I've addressed I sincerely apologize. Their entitled to their views and I respect them even though we may disagree at times. For me though, find it extremely hard to forgive him especially if one of those mages was a family or friend.    

 

It's possible that Cullen didn't kill children but, it is also possible he did considering children make up part of the circle of magi. I know I cannot prove this but it remains a possibility if those children felt they need to defend themselves from templars. I hope he didn't however, I cannot rule it out for certain based on the information I've read on Dragon Age wiki. 

Like I said, that innocent mages died is a virtual certainty.  But I'm also saying that what happened really bothered Cullen.  By DAI, he has a unique perspective in that he has seen both mages (the Broken Circle quest line in DAO) and Templars (The Last Straw in DA2) at their absolute worst.

 

And I think that, given Cullen's personality and by the examples of the actions we do see, that Cullen would not strike down a child if he could possibly avoid it. 

[The_Shade]

Like I said, that innocent mages died is a virtual certainty.  But I'm also saying that what happened really bothered Cullen.  By DAI, he has a unique perspective in that he has seen both mages (the Broken Circle quest line in DAO) and Templars (The Last Straw in DA2) at their absolute worst.

 

And I think that, given Cullen's personality and by the examples of the actions we do see, that Cullen would not strike down a child if he could possibly avoid it. 

 

I understand and I hope he has changed for his sake. The signs in DAI are positive as you have pointed out. That said, if you're asking me if I forgive him for his actions, it's difficult for me especially if children were killed which remains a possibility. Perhaps I might in the future if he continues to act in a caring and amicable manner to others but as I say, it's hard when you consider that the mages that are dead from the actions of templars such as himself are gone forever just because they were unfortunate enough to be born as mages. 

 

I do hope my views aren't coming across as unreasonable as some have implied. 

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Bad taste. Then again, with the exception of Sebastian, all the LI men in DA2 were mentally broken too.

[Panda]

Well, I dislike Cullen and some people 'love' him, so I wouldn't be the best judge.

 

Advocating for a mage genocide is one thing but, racism to Oghren too? GTFO.

 

Also, I don't accept the premise that he was in difficult circumstances. In actual fact he was in

the precise circumstances he was trained for, if you can't keep your cool in a moment of crisis

you are a poor Templar.

 

Wasn't it very good then that even if being tortured and having hard time keeping his cool he did logical decision of kill the one's in the chamber above him that were all under influence of powerful abomination and blood mage Uldred. He was naive before it, but was willing to make hard decision that was logically right one in the position he was in so he did very well being so young templar in the crisis.

[Forsythia77]

Bad taste. Then again, with the exception of Sebastian, all the LI men in DA2 were mentally broken too.

Ugh.  Sebastian.  I hate Sebastian and his over-compensatory belt buckle so much.  He might not be mentally broken but he is overly moralistic.

[TeffexPope]

Ugh.  Sebastian.  I hate Sebastian and his over-compensatory belt buckle so much.  He might not be mentally broken but he is overly moralistic.

[I seem to be completely unable to find the spoiler tags in the post page, so be warned of minor plot spoilers to follow.]

 

 

 

 

Well if you let Anders live in DA2, he attempts to annex Kirkwall in order to bring his accomplices to justice. I was really surprised by that, given that they seemed to write Sebastian as a completely moralistic ruler. But, with the annexation attempt they show either 1.) that he can be a bit dark as well or 2.) is moralistic to a fault. But either case I was a bit struck by the brazenness of his attempt.