49 réponses à ce sujet

[Sabriana]

Defiling the ashes is not evil if the PC has no connections whatsoever to the Maker/Andraste. To those PCs it's an ashtray. Or, as Sten puts it, a waste-bin.

Bhelen v Harrowmont is neither good nor evil. I don't know the DN story, but I highly doubt that the DC would choose Harrowmont. My PCs are all human. They have to start from scratch, and they all end up with Bhelen. They are not goody two shoes, not by a stretch, but they abhor suffering. Such as the population of Dust Town endures.

Talking to the nobles, they want Harrowmont (many of them at any rate), the Commoners and Casteless want Bhelen (again, most of them).

Opening scene: My PC and her allies walk into the Commons. Bhelen and Harrowmont face off. Mayhem ensues. Harrowmont's people run for the hills leaving their leader all by his lonesome, while Bhelen's people stand steadfast behind him. That alone made my PCs more inclined to believe that Bhelen is the better leader of his society.

A snippet from the wiki:

    "We dwarves do things much the same, when it comes time for the Houses to contest the throne, though there's rarely any... bystanding... No House is neutral in the Assembly, not ever. In Orzammar, things are solved quickly and with as much bloodshed as we can stand... and then a little bit more."

    --Nalthur, of the Legion of the Dead

[krylo]

Felipevelloso wrote...

Tinnic wrote...

I don't play evil characters but on my second play though, which I just finished yesterday, I ended up siding with Bhelen over Harrowmont. I sided with Harrowmont when I played through the first time and regretted it. Bhelen vs Harrowmont is not a good vs evil choice. As that dwarf in the tavern tells you, they both have their failing but Bhelen is the stronger king and choosing him leads to progress for the dwarves while choosing Harrowmont leads to regression and a weaker rule overall. So siding with Bhelen is... pragmatic not evil.

I have to disagree with you... Bhelen killed his brother and he's a cold power hungry dwarf. If you played the noble dwarf origin it's evilness is even more fleshed out. In that origin, Bhellen the younger son of the king, kills the heir and them frame you for it (and it is hinted that bhellen may have killed the king too). Harrowmont is showed as a true friend of the king and as benevolent ruler. And actualy the dwarf origins ends with harrowmont saving your life and letting you run away with Duncan... after all this, to side with bhelen is the evil thing.

On the other hand, Bhelen wants to bring the casteless up, allow them to take up swords in defense of their city, and in so doing earn a living wage, while Harrowmont sees the casteless dwarves as less than alive.

So is it more evil to put someone who killed his brother and father on the throne, but will, in turn, save the lives of many starving dwarves, or is it more evil to put someone that saved the life of a noble, but would leave the poor to starve to death without a care?

Further, if one pays attention to how they act and react to situations, and the amount of backstabbing in Dwarven politics, one can quickly tell that Harrowmont will fail as a king.  He won't be strong enough to command the Deshyr and therefore he won't be powerful enough to command the country, while Bhelen obviously will be able to. 

Is it more evil to put an unscrupulous king on the throne whom you know will be able to send you an army to fight the blight, or to put a scrupulous king on the throne who may not be able to?

To go further yet, and to add to Harrowmont's weakness/Bhelen's strength, if one pays attention, again, to the backstabbing and politicking, one might come to the conclusion that Harrowmont as king would not only be at risk of being unable to send an army to you (and, indeed, some Deshyrs keep their armies back after he orders them forward), but he may be too weak to absorb the darkspawn as they return from the surface, and may even be too weak to end the civil war that is rocking the city of Orzammar (and, indeed, he IS too weak to end the civil war).

So is it more evil to put an immoral king on the throne who can hold his country together, or to put a moral king on the throne whom is too weak to keep his country from tearing itself apart with civil wars?

When electing a king what is 'good' and 'evil' comes down to much more than whether or not the candidate himself is a good and honorable man.

[Tinnic]

krylo wrote...

Felipevelloso wrote...

Tinnic wrote...

I don't play evil characters but on my second play though, which I just finished yesterday, I ended up siding with Bhelen over Harrowmont. I sided with Harrowmont when I played through the first time and regretted it. Bhelen vs Harrowmont is not a good vs evil choice. As that dwarf in the tavern tells you, they both have their failing but Bhelen is the stronger king and choosing him leads to progress for the dwarves while choosing Harrowmont leads to regression and a weaker rule overall. So siding with Bhelen is... pragmatic not evil.

I have to disagree with you... Bhelen killed his brother and he's a cold power hungry dwarf. If you played the noble dwarf origin it's evilness is even more fleshed out. In that origin, Bhellen the younger son of the king, kills the heir and them frame you for it (and it is hinted that bhellen may have killed the king too). Harrowmont is showed as a true friend of the king and as benevolent ruler. And actualy the dwarf origins ends with harrowmont saving your life and letting you run away with Duncan... after all this, to side with bhelen is the evil thing.

On the other hand, Bhelen wants to bring the casteless up, allow them to take up swords in defense of their city, and in so doing earn a living wage, while Harrowmont sees the casteless dwarves as less than alive.

So is it more evil to put someone who killed his brother and father on the throne, but will, in turn, save the lives of many starving dwarves, or is it more evil to put someone that saved the life of a noble, but would leave the poor to starve to death without a care?

Further, if one pays attention to how they act and react to situations, and the amount of backstabbing in Dwarven politics, one can quickly tell that Harrowmont will fail as a king.  He won't be strong enough to command the Deshyr and therefore he won't be powerful enough to command the country, while Bhelen obviously will be able to. 

Is it more evil to put an unscrupulous king on the throne whom you know will be able to send you an army to fight the blight, or to put a scrupulous king on the throne who may not be able to?

To go further yet, and to add to Harrowmont's weakness/Bhelen's strength, if one pays attention, again, to the backstabbing and politicking, one might come to the conclusion that Harrowmont as king would not only be at risk of being unable to send an army to you (and, indeed, some Deshyrs keep their armies back after he orders them forward), but he may be too weak to absorb the darkspawn as they return from the surface, and may even be too weak to end the civil war that is rocking the city of Orzammar (and, indeed, he IS too weak to end the civil war).

So is it more evil to put an immoral king on the throne who can hold his country together, or to put a moral king on the throne whom is too weak to keep his country from tearing itself apart with civil wars?

When electing a king what is 'good' and 'evil' comes down to much more than whether or not the candidate himself is a good and honorable man.

I totally agree with this. I mean, I have taken the moral high ground over pragmatism before but this case I can't even chose Harrowmont on moral grounds. Yes, Bhelen did kill his brothers and might well have killed his father. I don't like him. He knows I don't like. But as he said, we don't have to like each other. We just have to do the right thing. The right path to choose is one that causes the least suffering and bring benefit to the greatest number of people. Bhelen does both. Therefore, choosing him is the right thing to do. 

One thing though, if you talk to the dwarves in Redcliff castle, they do say the same thing no matter who you sided with. I.e. that some houses are stalling. But it doesn't have an impact on the storyline or anything. Did give me pause the first time I heard it and wondered if I would get a bad ending for the dwarves if I called the dwarves into help me battle the Archdemon and too many of them died. Didn't seem to have any impact, however.

[sylvanaerie]

This is one of those decisions in the game I hate. I really wish a third option had presented itself. Worst so because it interferes in the Warden's "neutrality" policy. Bhelen is certainly in the right when he complains it shouldn't be left up to a surfacer to decide who the dwarf king should be. (If you put Bhelen in charge do you still get the conversation in Redcliffe about one noble house balking at sending their men to Denerim?) Harrowmont is a weak and politically slimy man no less than Bhelen is a power mad despot. He WAS engaging in bribery (Even if Bhelen was having his man forge those papers it still didn't change what was basically bribery as the two Houses didn't deny he had bribed them).



As I enjoy the Proving quest MUCH more than trolling around in the Deep Roads I usually do Harrowmont's quest side then when I get back from helping Caridin (I've never let Branka live), I usually pick either then. Depends on how pissed off I am by the time I get to that point in the game. I hate being manipulated and sometimes cast Harrowmont to the wolves for jerking me around.

[sylvanaerie]

damn internet hiccoup.  Sorry Double Post.

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 15 mars 2010 - 07:53 .

[Sabriana]

Yes, I agree, Sylvanaerie. Neither are lily-white, and they'd fit poorly into dwarf society if they were. One uses bribery, and the other uses forgery to uncover the bribery.

I also believe that Harrowmont was involved in hoodwinkery, and did indeed promise the same land to both families. Bhelen would look pretty silly and loose support if those two families compared notes. I don't think it would take them any time at all to figure out that it was Bhelen who uncovered the bribery.

Dace: "Hello Helmi, I hear that your family was promised this particular piece of real estate."

Helmi: "No, we were actually promised another piece of land."

Dace: "Well I'll be..., I think we have been fooled into withdrawing our support to Harrowmont."

Helmi: "You're right. My family won't stand for that. I'll talk to Harrowmont, show him what was done, and perhaps we can renew the deal. My vote will go back to Harrowmont."

Dace: "Indeed. There can only be one person who tried to trick us into withdrawing support from Harrowmont. I dislike being tricked, and I shall accompany you to Harrowmont. We shall see who laughs last."

[Sannox]

The Bhelen decision was easy to roleplay, for me, when I did it. I felt that my elf mage had no interest in Orzammar politics, and just wanted to get a ruler in place as soon as possible so that the army could be recruited. Bhelen was the first to send a representative, and was the candidate favoured by one of my companions. The dwarves seemed to be as keen as I was to just get the matter sorted - that seemed to be more important than who took the throne.



Defiling the ashes wasn't a problem for someone who didn't follow Andraste, and so one character did it to get the specialisation. The player characters come from different races and backgrounds, and I think it's quite believable that some of them just won't be that interested or care that much about certain issues that aren't theirs (dwarf politics, chantry business, etc.). I could see a human character sparing the werewolves because they were human. After all, the human will have been brought up in a society which is strongly prejudiced against elves.

[odiedragon]

My racist Cousland put Bhelen on the throne because she believed human ways are better than dwarven ones... simple as that. Bhelen was the son of the king and thus the rightful heir. For her, the choice was obvious.

[Tinnic]

Sannox wrote...

Defiling the ashes wasn't a problem for someone who didn't follow Andraste, and so one character did it to get the specialisation. The player characters come from different races and backgrounds, and I think it's quite believable that some of them just won't be that interested or care that much about certain issues that aren't theirs (dwarf politics, chantry business, etc.). I could see a human character sparing the werewolves because they were human. After all, the human will have been brought up in a society which is strongly prejudiced against elves.

It's not the defiling the ashes that's the evil part. My Dalish Elf didn't follow Andraste either as the Dalish elves have their own gods. Same with dwarves. The "evil" part is really the fact that you are siding with a murdering cult of dragon worshippers. 

In both my play through I sided with the werewolves, in that I told Zathrien that he had to lift the curse and I wouldn't help him massicare the werewolves just so he can continue hating. I.e. I just didn't have them kill the Dalish. Two totally different things. The "best option" involves saving the werewolves and helping them become human once again. Sicking them on the elves doesn't benefit anyone but the Warden who has werewolves for his/her army. The Dalish elves die and the humans remain werewolves and they don't want to remain werewolves. They want the curse to be lifted. Which is why you have to persuade them to attack the Dalish elves. A human or dwarf would really have to hate elves like the KKK hates black people to encourage the Werewolves to wipe the Dalish out. Not saying people can't role play humans racist against elves. Just saying but in both cases there is no denying the "evil" part no matter what your background.

[Sabriana]

The non Andraste worshipping PC made a deal with a cult to get the ashes and get out alive asap, without having to face more of the cultists. The PC also has no way of knowing whether the high dragon will behave herself if she breaks the deal with Kolgrim.

To her, the ashes are worthless trash, so why should she risk herself and her allies for the ashes of long dead woman?

When the PC presents the solution of 'killing all the elves' the guardian spirit seems quite interested in hearing the details of the plan. Witherfang also demands twice that Zathrian be killed, even though he knows by then that the death of the keeper will not lift the curse.

[Mlai00]

I think it's not necessary to do ALL the "evil" things in 1 playthru. Do some of them each time, as is reasonable depending on the roleplaying of your PC's origin and background.

In my current dwarven commoner rogue playthru, I...



(1) Sided with the wolves and slaughtered the Dalish: I purposely dicked around in the Dalish Camp and got into bad relations with a lot of them, because I'm a rogue and as a player I knew I wanted to try for the Slayer achievement this time. Found out Zathrian was manipulating me. Shale didn't like it. Morrigan then gave me a little speech about power vs love back in camp, subtly prodding me into siding with the wolves.

At the showdown in the Dalish camp, I still gave Zathrian 1 last chance to un-curse the wolves. I don't know how you guys managed to resolve that showdown peacefully, but in my scenario Zathrian absolutely refused to back down, and so it came down to war.



(2) Saved Redcliffe, but I was as much of a dick as possible in the town, killing the bartender (he deserved it), cheating the orphans out of their family heirloom sword, etc. Heh, I got Morrigan to laugh. That should tell you something.



(3) Intend to kill the mages, and Wynn. Saw what demons can do in little kids (Connor, girl in Shale DLC). Saw a real bad example of a mage (Avernus). Combine that with a dwarven lack of empathy for mages. Conclusion: They're so not worth the trouble. Don't intend to have any more demons loose.



(4) Intend to defile the Ashes. Intend to take Leliana along too, so I can kill her LOL. I want that Reaver spec, and I know neither elves nor humans would defile Andraste. Who better to do it, than an uneducated dwarf from the slums?



(5) Wanted to kill Zev, but decided losing 1 Rogue Companion (Lel) is enough. But if I really wanted to roleplay... I don't think a streetwise rogue is trusting enough to let an assassin join up. Um... I'll kill him next time. Or maybe during his quest! Depends on how he plays out in my group.



(6) Intend to destroy the anvil. Reasoning is obvious. Same reasoning for intending to vote for Bhelen. You think a girl like my PC would care that he's unscrupulous?

Incidentally, my HN also voted for Bhelen, simply because it's natural for him to vote for someone with royal blood. Also, Loghain's betrayal made him somewhat cautious of base-born men with power. As in, "you can't scrub the lying cheating peasant out of a low-born, no matter how high he climbs in life."

[chaosapiant]

Mlai00 wrote...

I think it's not necessary to do ALL the "evil" things in 1 playthru. Do some of them each time, as is reasonable depending on the roleplaying of your PC's origin and background.
In my current dwarven commoner rogue playthru, I...

(1) Sided with the wolves and slaughtered the Dalish: I purposely dicked around in the Dalish Camp and got into bad relations with a lot of them, because I'm a rogue and as a player I knew I wanted to try for the Slayer achievement this time. Found out Zathrian was manipulating me. Shale didn't like it. Morrigan then gave me a little speech about power vs love back in camp, subtly prodding me into siding with the wolves.
At the showdown in the Dalish camp, I still gave Zathrian 1 last chance to un-curse the wolves. I don't know how you guys managed to resolve that showdown peacefully, but in my scenario Zathrian absolutely refused to back down, and so it came down to war.

(2) Saved Redcliffe, but I was as much of a dick as possible in the town, killing the bartender (he deserved it), cheating the orphans out of their family heirloom sword, etc. Heh, I got Morrigan to laugh. That should tell you something.

(3) Intend to kill the mages, and Wynn. Saw what demons can do in little kids (Connor, girl in Shale DLC). Saw a real bad example of a mage (Avernus). Combine that with a dwarven lack of empathy for mages. Conclusion: They're so not worth the trouble. Don't intend to have any more demons loose.

(4) Intend to defile the Ashes. Intend to take Leliana along too, so I can kill her LOL. I want that Reaver spec, and I know neither elves nor humans would defile Andraste. Who better to do it, than an uneducated dwarf from the slums?

(5) Wanted to kill Zev, but decided losing 1 Rogue Companion (Lel) is enough. But if I really wanted to roleplay... I don't think a streetwise rogue is trusting enough to let an assassin join up. Um... I'll kill him next time. Or maybe during his quest! Depends on how he plays out in my group.

(6) Intend to destroy the anvil. Reasoning is obvious. Same reasoning for intending to vote for Bhelen. You think a girl like my PC would care that he's unscrupulous?
Incidentally, my HN also voted for Bhelen, simply because it's natural for him to vote for someone with royal blood. Also, Loghain's betrayal made him somewhat cautious of base-born men with power. As in, "you can't scrub the lying cheating peasant out of a low-born, no matter how high he climbs in life."

And you did all that, with that cute little dwarf in your avatar?  Priceless!  It's like Chucky!

[R-F]

chaosapiant wrote...

What about poisoning the ashes? Is there any justification for that? I have yet to do that to unlock reaver.

don't take Leliana with you, she really doesn't like that.

i find it hard taking choices that result in slaughtering people in the game, it just doesn't feel right playing as say a human noble (unless that person is Howe, then all bets are off). it makes more sense for certain other origins though.

[Sannox]

Tinnic wrote...It's not the defiling the ashes that's the evil part. My Dalish Elf didn't follow Andraste either as the Dalish elves have their own gods. Same with dwarves. The "evil" part is really the fact that you are siding with a murdering cult of dragon worshippers. 
.

You don't need to side with him - you can cheat him.   You can defile the ashes, get the reaver specialisation then kill him. 

[krylo]

Mlai00 wrote...
 Combine that with a dwarven lack of empathy for mages.

I never noticed a lack of empathy for mages from dwarves.  In fact I noticed the opposite, in that the dwarves seem to be the only race that doesn't fear mages and constantly make comments like "She'll turn us into a toad, she will!"  They seem to view mages the same way your average Ferelden citizen would view a skilled warrior.  Somewhat dangerous, sure, but with the way magic just rolls off dwarves like nothing they don't have the same fear, and therefore don't have the same discrimination toward mages.


That said, on the ashes: The cultists offer you the power of the dragon.  I don't remember the exact wording, but I think it's vague enough to leave a warden believing that they might actually be able to have their dragon wrastle the archdemon.  Even if it's not, and it's obvious they're simply empowering you, that alone could be enough to make a pragmatic/non-religious warden figure, "Welp, take a pinch for Arl Eamon, then get myself all powered up for the blight," as that stopping the archdemon is more important that preserving a holy relic that the world has done just fine without up until now.

Particularly if your non-religious warden is dwarven or has Oghren come along to provide the view that maybe all these 'miracles' aren't really due to the ashes, but rather the location in a lyrium rich mountainside.

Modifié par krylo, 14 mars 2010 - 10:51 .

[Janni-in-VA]

How do "evil" characters finish up regarding XP and levels? Since some of these choices eliminate side quests which provide XP, it seems to me that the PC might conceivably end up at a lower level than a character who chose the higher ground. I know the game scales difficulty, but still....

[Mlai00]

How do "evil" characters finish up regarding XP and levels? Since some of these choices eliminate side quests which provide XP, it seems to me that the PC might conceivably end up at a lower level than a character who chose the higher ground.

Well, there are also evil quests that good characters don't finish, such as Slim Couldry quests, and the Crow quests.

And I couldn't believe the amount of loot I managed to reap by slaughtering a campful of Dalish. I was under the erroneous impression that they're impoverished!

I never noticed a lack of empathy for mages from dwarves... therefore don't have the same discrimination toward mages.

I also noticed dwarves don't take particular notice of mages, unlike Qunari and humans. Dwarves see them only as lyrium consumers.

But lack of negative attention doesn't mean positive attention. I don't fear them but that doesn't mean I care about them or their "plight". AFAIC, the first few mages I've encountered are either demon-possessed, demon-summoning, or GW-experimenting wackos. After going thru Warden's Keep, Honnleath, and Redcliffe, before going to the Circle... my PC's had enough of jailbreaking demons. She's never seen so many f'ing demons in her life, and they all came from mages.

And you did all that, with that cute little dwarf in your avatar? Priceless! It's like Chucky!

Heeeee! Noooo she's a good person! Tuvok err Zathrian manipulated her and she still gave him one last chance!

Besides, it's so f'ing cool to have a werewolf in camp. I'm wondering if I can feed him Schmooples. When Leliana dies, I ain't gonna take care of that thing.

Actually what am I talking about - I can eat it.

[MutantSpleen]

My mage made some of those choices but I don't consider them evil.



I unfortunately was duped by Harrowmont's gentler nature and did not think he would be such a weak king. I now wish I had chosen Bhelen. I also allowed Branka to live. Not because I just wanted to be evil, I didn't. I knew Branka was crazy but she was also a genius and the only one who could work the forge. After Cairden made his intentions clear, I felt the artifact was too valuable to destroy. Though I can't condone what she did to her house. I still felt the addition of golems would be the most beneficial for me and for the future of the dwarves. Without some serious help they are going to fall.



Killing your siblings off to get the throne. Not uncommon. Par for the course in Dwarven politics. Endrin poisoned his own brother too. Though my dwarf noble killed Bhelen because of that same principle, plus he betrayed me. My dwarf noble actually killed Trian, I didn't just come across the body. Bhelen played both me and Trian into thinking we were going to kill the other. I was confronted by Trian and ended up decapitating him.

[Xandurpein]

You mustn't expect to have a fully developed evil genius corruption from start. It's like going into the gym and pick the 200 pound weights at first time. Start with smaller evil, feel your corruption grow slowly and eventually you'll be dealing mayhem with the heavy weights. Remember that pangs of conscience is just like aches from exercise, it shows that you are on the right track.

[Mlai00]

Another thing to note, at least for me, is that playing a different alignment reveals another side of the game world to you.

In my 1st "default" playthrough as a goody-goody HNM Warrior... sure I did all the knightly things, and felt good about myself when all the little people and their babies are smiling at me and thanking me and kissing my feet, and all my noble peers are trusting me as a valiant fellow, and all my Companions like me and are buddy-buddy with me...

But now that I'm playing my DCF Rogue, I've come to realize how superficial my HN's knowledge/understanding of the world and the people truly are. He's always gallivanted around on his white horse, expecting people to love him for being so heroic. That's the only side of the world he ever sees, from that high pedestal. Which is why, in the end when Alistair suddenly betrayed his trust, my HN was flabbergasted. It completely blindsided him that his smiling buddy had a fatal failing.

I'm finding that my DC Roguish girl learns about this world much more intimately. She sees how disingenuous and/or how pathetic the common people can be. She sees how some important NPCs have other sides to them, because she doesn't pick only the harmless, socially-acceptable dialogue choices.

She has a much deeper understanding of Morrigan at the campfire than my HN ever did.  My HN didn't trust Morrigan, who exuded that "Oh I'm so dark" aura.  But my DC is finding that Morrigan is the only honest person around.  Morrigan never hides her failings from you; she acts the same way towards my HN and my DC, unlike say Alistair.  Or perhaps my HN was just blind to Alistair's faults because he's a fellow "knightly warrior".

My DC realized early on just how naive and weak Alistair truly is; in contrast to my HN who protected and shielded Alistair way too much, thinking he's a man just because he can wave a sword.

Modifié par Mlai00, 15 mars 2010 - 02:42 .

[BubbleDncr]

I was trying to be evil with my elf mage, and so I sacrificed Isolde and went into the fade and made a deal with the demon to to be blood mage. Then...the game totally glitched on me, cos when I went to camp, Alistair thanked me for saving Eamon's family.....even tho I really couldn't have done things worse for him.

Then when I went to the mage tower, I basically sided with the mages, cos I was one, and cos I heard that if you're a blood mage, Wynne will turn on you at the end. Well, that's not true. Which kind of sucks.



Soo.....when I got taking to Irving and Gregoir, I was all, "well...ANY of the mages COULD be a blood mage." *cough*me*cough* So even though I saved the mages, they get to suffer because they're too stupid to realise I'm the blood mage. If it werent for the fact that I hate playing through the fade, I would've gone back and killed Wynne right from the start...

[Darkkyn46]

If you do go pure evil, will you lose a lot of companions? I figure Wynne and Alistair will be gone. What about the others?

[Tinnic]

Darkkyn46 wrote...

If you do go pure evil, will you lose a lot of companions? I figure Wynne and Alistair will be gone. What about the others?

No Wynn, no Alistair, no Leliana, even Zevran takes approval hits under certain circumstances so he can be low enough that he will turn on you in Denerim as part of his personal quest. Don't know about Oghran but he might go too. Shale goes as well if you choose to keep the anvil of the void (the evil choice). So basically its Dog, Morrigan and I guess Sten. Mind you, you can talk Leliana and Zevran down, Leliana specially becomes easy to sway to evil if you "harden" her personality. But by in large, a good character will be able to end game with even Sten, Morrigan and Zevran adoring them but evil characters will have an empty camp site. Although, I don't think evil characters will care about not having friends. So an empty camp site is probably not a big concern for them.

[BubbleDncr]

Alistair can't leave your party until after the Landsmeet, and he'll only leave if you spare Loghain. Leliana will leave if you desecrate the ashes, as will Wynne, I believe. They'll actually fight you with they're with you at the time, but Leliana will leave afterwards next time you go to camp. Wynne will also fight you if you side with the Templers when you first meet her or when you come across Cullen before fighting Uldred. And Shale will fight you if he's with you at the anvil and you side with Branka.

[Mlai00]

I believe you can install a mod which re-activates a scene in the game that Bioware made but then de-activated.

In it, if you are a Blood Mage, you will eventually have a 3-way confrontation between you, Wynn, and the Circle Tower Templars. At the end, at least 1 of the 3 will be dead. Or, 2 of the 3 will be dead. Meaning you can kill off both the Mages *and* the Templars.

Bioware de-activated this scene because it breaks the Landsmeet. Eamon will never start it because you don't have enough allies.

Ofc, the mod that broke this flag, also allows a cheat that lets you bypass it so the Landsmeet still takes place.