158 réponses à ce sujet

[phoray]

That's an important point for every character, it will never be the same the decision of the Well of Sorrows with a person who never played DA:O (never knew Morrigan), compared to the decision of a Morrigan fan.

 

When I played Inquisition, it was my first Dragon Age, and Morrigan is presented as a mysterious witch, nothing more, nothing else, you can't know if you trust her, the logical decision for everyone would be take the Well for the inquisitor.

 

Let me try to strip away all my impressions of Morrigan. An honest try.

 

1. She trusts you enough to give you info and a key she found on a dead guy even if you tell her nothing in return at the Winter Palace.
2. She is dumped on the Quiz whether you want her or not; depending on dialogue choices, you don't much hear her being unwilling.
3. She brings a strange mirror and her kid to Skyhold. To be honest, her loving her kid so much wins some motherly sympathy points. She tells you about the Mirror even if she doesn't have to.
4. Gives good cautious advice about the Arbor Wilds at the War Table prior to going.
5. But then you arrive and things get even weirder than Cory going after a mirror.
6. Then you find out he was never going after a Mirror. You wonder why she was so damn certain it was the mirror. Dude can fly. Demons can fly. My first PT, I straight up rip her a new one about being totally wrong.
7. She talks you into doing some weird Elven traditions cuz she just loves history so much and maybe it's important.
8. Then risks the only good things to come of doing the stupid tradition (the respect of ancient elves) by going crow and chasing Abelas.
9. Then demands you let her drink the well after whining about how much you should trust her by now.

Uh...no. And I even think there is the possibility of killing Abelas in all that, which would have made this scene even more different for me my first PT. So, yes, Bioware is depending on you, the player, to have previous knowledge of Morrigan to make that trust leap and let her drink. In my case, it backfired, because everything I knew about her made her more suspicious, not less so, even though I loved her as a sister. But there are hundreds of good reasons a character could also choose to let her drink or not drink that doesn't depend on our knowing her as a character.

[Spirit Vanguard]

I think that Anders litteraly just forced a war to happen over that. I don't think that's acceptable - but eh, these topics aren't really my thing in all respects..

 

I'll have to disagree. I'm not saying that Anders is innocent, and shouldn't be punished, but the situation was more complicated than that.

[Arshei]

I'll have to disagree. I'm not saying that Anders is innocent, and shouldn't be punished, but the situation was more complicated than that.

 

If it wasn't Anders the one who did that you won't be "disagreeing".

[GoldenGail3]

I'll have to disagree. I'm not saying that Anders is innocent, and shouldn't be punished, but the situation was more complicated than that.

Oh I hate this topic.

Who else started the war? Ethenia? And keeping Anders alive actually does save lives btw, look at DAI, and see what Sebs does.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

That's an important point for every character, it will never be the same the decision of the Well of Sorrows with a person who never played DA:O (never knew Morrigan), compared to the decision of a Morrigan fan.

 

When I played Inquisition, it was my first Dragon Age, and Morrigan is presented as a mysterious witch, nothing more, nothing less, you can't just trust her, the logical decision for everyone would be take the Well for the inquisitor.

 

I feel like it's only "the" logical decision because you know this is a game and they're more likely to have a minor semi-advisor betray you than they are to game-over you at some indistinct point down the line by having an elven goddess take over your mind, though. Abelas is pretty clear on this point and Morrigan's only argument is that she's pretty sure that Mythal is a "dead god" that can't hurt her, anyway. To me, that's a big risk to take for a questionable source of knowledge that you only just heard about and may have no idea how to use. I'm not saying there aren't necessarily justifications for arguing towards drinking, but it's a tough situation and I don't think one is necessarily the only logical conclusion. I don't think prior experience with Morrigan is the only reason not to drink. If you think there's any chance you could literally be handing over your free will to some unknown entity, there's plenty of reason to let someone else take that chance. To me, Morrigan sounded arrogant and misguided in taking that risk, but I didn't see the option of doing that myself as particularly better.

[Gold Dragon]

1.  Rarely.  Typically only if I need a small approval increase.

 

2.  Untill DA2, My Noble never recruited him. My elves did, but for varying reasons.

After DA2, everyone did (so as to get all the help I could in DA2)

 

3. Unless playing an elf, she drinks from the well (I did it once for story sake, but reloaded afterwards), so NO.

 

4.  Don't have to.  I more have to work to get his disapproval, if anything (which probably says something wierd about me).

 

EDIT:  First playthru I totally missed Isabela, and avoided That silly prince until Elthina insisted.

 

Unless playing Mage, I don't recruit Vivienne, and only recruit Sera for the quests and the BEES!

[phoray]

I think that Anders litteraly just forced a war to happen over that. I don't think that's acceptable - but eh, these topics aren't really my thing in all respects..

 

If you go by the books, it's obvious that Anders was one of 3 things, not the ONLY thing. The cure for tranquility mixed with the lies of the Seekers, and teh restrictions on the mages that led to a Mini Conclave of first enchanters that resulted in a Massacre. Really, I think that stupid rebel redhead that used to be Wynne's son, Rhys's ex lover, was the most awful and responsible. Adriana? Adriene? Yeah. She should have gotten the knife like Floriana.

[GoldenGail3]

The idea in the basic form is: Killing is wrong. You killed people. So you deserve to die --- Rather than "you deserve to be punished for your crime" which isn't interchangeable to me.
 
With Blackwall you're given the option to let him hang or atone, serve the Inquisition or shove him off to the Wardens. I feel these are fitting. What does killing him resolve? Nothing. It doesn't undue his crime. It's just one more death.
 
It turns into a Batman vs Joker situation...

Yes, but Sebs annexing Kirkwall isnt saving any lives, and Batman doesn't kill people - he took a oath to never to do so - which is why that's not relevant.

[nightscrawl]

But that's why it's so painful... Knowing his full story, we know this guy just ran away from home because Daddy was playing dirty and his father replacement had gone off the deep end into weird stuff. And here he is, he took a chance...and the stereotypical anti-Tevinter Free Marcher mentality shuts him down after all that time in the future? I can't even imagine where he'd go. I expect he'd feel lost. I mean, he only gets the Magister Reform Idea after all the stuff you learn with him as the Quiz. And his speech is about how you inspired him. So does he even do that if he didn't hang with the Quiz?

 

He does, but it's rather difficult to tell whether it's because he does that on his own or because of gamey reasons. He comes back in Trespasser and has inherited his father's position regardless of what you do in the main game, whether you recruit him or not, or whether you have kicked him out later on. He is the guaranteed mage slot for Trespasser, since Vivienne can also not be recruited and be unavailable, and we already know about Solas. Since we're likely heading to Tevinter in the next game and Dorian will probably figure in it, he had to end up in the same position regardless of the player action.

 

I think if you don't recruit him, or kick him out, he just has a different motivation and inspiration, whereas the Inquisitor features prominently on the other path. I don't think that makes his words to the Inquisitor any less meaningful, since the relationship (friend or romance) is important and formative on that path.

[Spirit Vanguard]

If it wasn't Anders the one who did that you won't be "disagreeing".

 

Let's not get personal.

 

Like I said, I don't think he's innocent and I don't believe in killing someone for killing. There was far more going on than "abomination Anders wanted freedom through blood." The complications of the matter is what the game was about.

 

The difference is that Anders is an abomination with a demon inside him that can blow up every city he wants, he is a danger for everyone. The point isn't "kill him because he killed innocent people", he is not even human, and don't come here with the discussion of Solas that spirits are people, Solas knows nothing.

 

No. Literally the logic most of the time from people that execute him is that "He killed people."

 

And, I'm not going to debate about spirits or abominations because that's not what this topic is about. But Solas, who created the Veil, knows nothing? Hm.

[GoldenGail3]

If you go by the books, it's obvious that Anders was one of 3 things, not the ONLY thing. The cure for tranquility mixed with the lies of the Seekers, and teh restrictions on the mages that led to a Mini Conclave of first enchanters that resulted in a Massacre. Really, I think that stupid rebel redhead that used to be Wynne's son, Rhys's ex lover, was the most awful and responsible. Adriana? Adriene? Yeah. She should have gotten the knife like Floriana.

Thanks for educating me - never read the novels, so yeah, me not knowing something is be expected.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

If you think that a person deserves to die because it has the means to help other people but he/she prefers to remain neutral... At least tell me that you give food the orphan, that you are finding the cure against the cancer, that you every time you see someone  being bullied you jump to the rescue. Tell me that at least.

 

I don't see Elthina as "neutral". The Templars were commanded by the Chantry and only exist due to their continued support. The neutrality argument is baseless. It's not as if these are two distinct entities with no connection. The Chantry supplies them with lyrium, arms and armor, and gave them the Circle in which to keep the mages. The Chantry and the Templars are the same. You can't create and continue to fund an army and then claim neutrality. That's absurdity. If this was some third party with no connection, then it would be different. If you went to Marethari and told her to have the Dalish do something about the Templars and she said she was staying out of it, that's totally understandable. Picking some random third party and telling them to choose a side and toss their weight behind it would be another issue. The Chantry absolutely was supporting the Templars. To say otherwise is lying, either to me or to themselves. If the Chantry leader won't try to control the monster they created, then they're at fault. They're not "neutral".

[GoldenGail3]

Let's not get personal.
 
Like I said, I don't think he's innocent and I don't believe in killing someone for killing. There was far more going on than "abomination Anders wanted freedom through blood." The complications of the matter is what the game was about.
 .

And through manipulations too - he manipulated Hawke into making a bomb for him.

[Spirit Vanguard]

Oh I hate this topic.

Who else started the war? Ethenia? And keeping Anders alive actually does save lives btw, look at DAI, and see what Sebs does.

 

Then don't bring it up.

 

Yes, but Sebs annexing Kirkwall isnt saving any lives, and Batman doesn't kill people - he took a oath to never to do so - which is why that's not relevant.

 

What I meant was that Batman doesn't believe in vigilante justice, so he won't kill the Joker--who in turn continues to murder people.

 

Sebastian is a reaction -- I can't say he will or won't invade, if he's just bluster. And at that point, he's waging war because of revenge. Elthina tried to teach him that wasn't the answer.

[Spirit Vanguard]

And through manipulations too - he manipulated Hawke into making a bomb for him.

 

Yes. Like I said: He isn't innocent.

 

Look, I'm not trying to say anyone is wrong because they kill Anders -- just why I don't do it. Opinions, opinions...

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Oh I hate this topic.

Who else started the war? Ethenia? And keeping Anders alive actually does save lives btw, look at DAI, and see what Sebs does.

To me, that says keeping Sebastian alive was the mistake. What he does is purely an act of petty vengeance on innocents. Anders isn't even IN Kirkwall and he KNOWS it. Sebastian is responsible for his own atrocities, not Anders. 

[GoldenGail3]

 
What I meant was that Batman doesn't believe in vigilante justice, so he won't kill the Joker--who in turn continues to murder people.
 
Sebastian is a reaction -- I can't say he will or won't invade, if he's just bluster. And at that point, he's waging war because of revenge. Elthina tried to teach him that wasn't the answer.

Oh he did indeed annex Kirkwall if you let Leliana do it. But otherwise lol nope. But anyhow, I barely bring this topic up due finding it super duper annoying becuase I haven't played DA2 in sometime. But anyhow - it's not complicated - Anders turned into Vengeance, who in turn used his powers as a abomation to destroy a chantry - to kill him is to be doing the Templar's duties.

[GoldenGail3]

To me, that says keeping Sebastian alive was the mistake. What he does is purely an act of petty vengeance on innocents. Anders isn't even IN Kirkwall and he KNOWS it. Sebastian is responsible for his own atrocities, not Anders.

Sebs was hyprocrital...

[GoldenGail3]

Yes. Like I said: He isn't innocent.
 
Look, I'm not trying to say anyone is wrong because they kill Anders -- just why I don't do it. Opinions, opinions...

I actually romanced him in my first game ever - and it was on friendship - I didn't know what he was doing the first time around - but eh... It kind of ruined it for me to discover it though.

[phoray]

Thanks for educating me - never read the novels, so yeah, me not knowing something is be expected.

 

 

Sorry, my description was poor. but let me try again:

 

1. "Anders blows up the Chantry in 9:37 Dragon." Which WoT says "Starts the War" but this isn't actually true, IMO, or there wouldn't still be Circles to have a violent uprising in as you'll see next. But this does bring to a head the desire for independence way more strongly than ever before, so in the next three years, there is an attempt at a vote for Circle Independence that gets put off or disregarded in some way.
2. "A cure for Tranquility is discovered in 9:40 Dragon." Wynne, a crafty old lady, intentionally makes sure that ALL the Mage Circles get the information. Which leads to a violent uprising in the White Spire in the same year, and Cole is in the White Spire. The seekers knew all along, they try to repress the information, violently. The mages aren't happy about the Tranquility Conspiracy. The Mages insist on a meeting to discuss this conspiracy. The Seekers/Templars concede to the meeting so long as no naughty votes for independence happen. Fiona comes in as First Enchanter of whatever circle... and disregards the "no naughty votes" rule and calls for a vote. Things get tense at this point, a murder is uncovered, Rhys is implicated, Wynne takes it personally and then... Massacre of all First Enchanters who don't have plot armor. The head Seeker disbands the Circle and rebels against the Chantry by saying the Chantry didn't hold up their side of the Nevarran Accord. The Circle Towers are burning down everyehwere, death, running. In the middle of nowhere, what few senior Enchanters remain finally hold their vote for independence. And bam. The War is started in earnest.

But I understand the confusion; DA2 ends with an explosion. DAI begins with a Mage Templar war. And in DAI, you don't even hear about the Tranquility Cure until Cass brings it up after her Seeker Luscious side quest. So to game only folks, all signs point to Anders kicking off a war. But it doesn't even start until three years later so that can't possibly be true.

[GoldenGail3]

Sorry, my description was poor. but let me try again:
 

• "Anders blows up the Chantry in 9:37 Dragon." Which WoT says "Starts the War" but this isn't actually true, IMO, or there wouldn't still be Circles to have a violent uprising in as you'll see next. But this does bring to a head the desire for independence way more strongly than ever before, so in the next three years, there is an attempt at a vote for Circle Independence that gets put off or disregarded in some way.
• "A cure for Tranquility is discovered in 9:40 Dragon." Wynne, a crafty old lady, intentionally makes sure that ALL the Mage Circles get the information. Which leads to a violent uprising in the White Spire in the same year, and Cole is in the White Spire. The seekers knew all along, they try to repress the information, violently. The mages aren't happy about the Tranquility Conspiracy. The Mages insist on a meeting to discuss this conspiracy. The Seekers/Templars concede to the meeting so long as no naughty votes for independence happen. Fiona comes in as First Enchanter of whatever circle... and disregards the "no naughty votes" rule and calls for a vote. Things get tense at this point, a murder is uncovered, Rhys is implicated, Wynne takes it personally and then... Massacre of all First Enchanters who don't have plot armor.

But I understand the confusion; DA2 ends with an explosion. DAI begins with a Mage Templar war. And in DAI, you don't even hear about the Tranquility Cure until Cass brings it up after her Seeker Luscious side quest. So to game only folks, all signs point to Anders kicking off a war. But it doesn't even start until three years later so that can't possibly be true.

Hm, interesting.

[Spirit Vanguard]

Oh he did indeed annex Kirkwall if you let Leliana do it. But otherwise lol nope. But anyhow, I barely bring this topic up due finding it super duper annoying becuase I haven't played DA2 in sometime. But anyhow - it's not complicated - Anders turned into Vengeance, who in turn used his powers as a abomation to destroy a chantry - to kill him is to be doing the Templar's duties.

 

That almost sounds like a joke. 

 

I like him, but Sebastian is foolish in this endeavor. He's retaliating because of his own lust for revenge. He's essentially punishing Kirkwall for Anders when the guy is already long gone, because that's all he can do.

 

So I suppose Meredith abusing mages with Tranquility and getting all crazy on red lyrium is... forgivable? Because she's a templar? And no one can stop her...

 

No. Anders isn't the single reason for the rebellion. He hit the launch because of what was happening. He's a reaction. It's all reactions to the underlying problem with magic and mages. Do I think he wouldn't have done something eventually even without Meredith? No, he probably would. Would it have been as radical...? Can't say. Would I have preferred a peaceful solution? Yes, of course!

[GoldenGail3]

That almost sounds like a joke. 
 
I like him, but Sebastian is foolish in this endeavor. He's retaliating because of his own lust for revenge. He's essentially punishing Kirkwall for Anders when the guy is already long gone, because that's all he can do.
 
So I suppose Meredith abusing mages with Tranquility and getting all crazy on red lyrium is... forgivable? Because she's a templar? And no one can stop her...
 
No. Anders isn't the single reason for the rebellion. He hit the launch because of what was happening. He's a reaction. It's all reactions to the underlying problem with magic and mages. Do I think he wouldn't have done something eventually even without Meredith? No, he probably would. Would it have been as radical...? Can't say. Would I have preferred a peaceful solution? Yes, of course!

Uh huh. Yeah, but there's not peaceful solution he took it 'away' due to not wanting comprise - so there's no peaceful solution, take that thought out of your head - it's not possible what so ever. He only did it because the abomation Justice was begging him to do it - I only wish he didn't come to Kirkwall, becuase it has a weak veil, everyone's effed up, and yeah, I'd have pefered Anders to have stayed a GW.

[Spirit Vanguard]

Uh huh. Yeah, but there's not peaceful solution he took it 'away' due to not wanting comprise - so there's no peaceful solution, take that thought out of your head - it's not possible what so ever. He only did it because the abomation Justice was begging him to do it - I only wish he didn't come to Kirkwall, becuase it has a weak veil, everyone's effed up, and yeah, I'd have pefered Anders to have stayed a GW.

 

"I removed the chance of compromise because there is no compromise." "A quick death now or a slow death later."

 

Meredith is mad on red lyrium. She wasn't open to compromise, paranoid beyond reason and was slowly squeezing life out of the Circle -- lashing out on them because she couldn't catch the "apostates" outside the Circle causing the real trouble. Using Tranquility against Chantry law. Keeping Cullen in the dark about questionable things he'd never approve of. Turning on the Circle mages with the Right of Annulment for a crime they didn't commit is a big deal  -- Templars are meant to protect mages, and that's something Anders was trying to prove. She's not interested in shielding them from the aftermath of Anders' actions, only using it to justify slaying them. They were innocent of that. It feels like you're underestimating how corrupted she is. Both of them have mental instability, not just Anders. He consistently turned to Elthina for help, to resolve some of the issues, but she wouldn't budge because she's also part of the Chanrty. There's evidence that he at least tried at some point.

[Gervaise]

It doesn't make me a hypocrite because if I want to explore different options in the game, I try and role play my character so they would make those sorts of decisions.   I did this with one of the my Inquisitors so I could make them more pro-Chantry and Circles and ended up not being able to complete the play through because I didn't empathise enough with the character I had created.

 

Where the game makes you hypocritical is when you are forced into agreeing with certain actions and made to say certain things that you know your character would not agree with because that is all the plot allows.    Also the interpretation of decisions you have taken.    This started back in DA2.   Because I started off pro-mage freedom and helping mages, I very quickly got Anders maximised out on friendship.   Then subsequent events started to temper my view but Anders still treated me as though I was fully supportive of his agenda, because the negative decisions I made no longer had any affect on him.    Finally when I opted to help the mages because I didn't feel any group of people deserved to die for someone else's actions, Varric of all people said that he wasn't sure he approved of letting "dangerous people run amok".   No, I'm stopping innocent people from being massacred.  He seemed to have missed the fact that for years the dangerous people had been running amok on the outside of the Circle and were the ones responsible for the current situation; the annulment had been called against the ones who had been obediently locked up in their cells in the Gallows.

 

In DAI the reaction to conscripting the mages seemed to be that I didn't support mage freedom.   Leliana was all bleeding hearts about my decision, Solas disapproved, Dorian called me an idiot    The game seemed to ignore that the rebel mages had been working with the enemy, their leader had made some very questionable decisions on the behalf of them all but none of them had had the backbone to stand up to her and I couldn't be sure they weren't still full of enemy agents (Leliana please note), so I conscripted them pending further developments rather than give them free rein on their decision making.   This was nothing to do with mage freedom and everything to do with a common sense approach to people who had only recently been working for my enemy. It didn't mean I distrusted all mages, just this particular group.    However, the suggestion they were on probation was attached to the decision to ally with mages, with no such similar option on conscripting which was strange since I felt that more accurately described the situation in that case.

 

The only real case of hypocrisy would be over the occulara skulls.   When I discovered how they were made, I objected to using them.   Then I discovered in the Keep that completing the Temple of Solassian is actually recorded, so assuming it might be of importance I felt obliged to collect all the shards on my next run, overlooking the distasteful nature of the quest.    On reaching the end I discovered nothing of importance to either the current game or so far as I could tell to the future.    It was profoundly disappointing and annoying that the Keep tricked me into compromising my principles on this one.