Forum:DA2 - Moral Choices

Forums: Index > Game DiscussionDA2 - Moral Choices

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4643 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

So after playing all 3 types of characters, using all 3 "personality" choices in Dragon Age 2 and RPing to the best of my ability, I'm wondering — how many people make choices in-game that are not...indicative of an actual moral choice, just to further your progress in-game? The prime example that comes to mind is allowing Torpor to possess Feynriel, just to get an extra talent point, or a few additional attribute points, even though you KNOW the demon is lying. Or....siding with the Templars at the end when the game has pretty much made it clear that the Mages ARE being oppressed.

I'm just curious what choices players make in-game that they would consider to be "moral" or "immoral." --Hyskfmn (talk) 18:00, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

I feel that selling out Feynriel for instance, is immoral. And so is siding with Sister Petrice. I do not consider siding with the Templars immoral because both sides are right and wrong. The mages are oppressed, but they also show they will easily resort to blood magic, and some are just weak enough to become an abomination, like Meredith's sister. Some are just like the Tevinter magisters and believe they should rule everyone else because they are powerful, like that girl in Enemies Among Us questline. So without the Templars a great many people without magic would be oppressed by magic users and who would kill abominations? On the other hand, the Templars are far too harsh on the mages and cause them half the time to committ suicide or turn to blood magic due to them beating and raping them. It is also cruel they cannot even see their family or have a normal life, and some mages are strong and kind enough to not do anything wrong, like Bethany. I believe that final decision is an entirely "shades of grey" choice. Xelestial (talk) 18:44, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Despite knowing how siding with demons usually offers grand sums of coin or points...I simply can't bring myself to do it, unless I'm being a vindictive aggressive Hawke that hates the world. Whcih was only once because he was too heartless in the end I felt. Otherwise, can't side with those demons, can't give leeway to blood mages. I consider siding with the templars moral only because the mages are abusing the power they have and are playing with demons, which all of Thedas generally agrees are bad. Elthina truly does embody the facts that the player knows and must grapple with to make a decision. Both sides of the argument have flaws and true positive points. A corrupt templar is just as bad as a corrupt mage and vice versa. Fractured Moonlight (talk) 18:57, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

So the Mage/Templar choice is technically both moral and immoral at the same time, but if you're doing it for moral reasons, you can justify your choice to be "moral" but not necessarily "correct". Xelestial (talk) 19:03, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Even though I find myself more sympathetic to the Mage's cause, sometimes I justify my siding with the Templars (when the circumstances call for it) by saying that since a Mage blew up the Chantry (and because honestly, I really do hate Anders and his whiny hypocrisy and refusal to admit he's made a lot of bad choices) that Anders forced my hand and there is no other path, like, "how can I side with the mages when one of their own has perpetrated such a heinous act?"--Hyskfmn (talk) 19:12, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

That's funny, that's the only reason I WOULDN'T use to side with the Templars, because the other mages had nothing to do with what Anders did. When you side with him and/or are in a rivalmance with him, he is a lot more sorry for what he's done and you can tell he didn't want to do half of it. To be honest, there's not a lot left of Anders by the end of the game. Xelestial (talk) 19:15, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the end game siding is both moral/immoral depending on the perspective you choose to take. It's immoral to support corrupt templarts, it's immoral to support corrupt mages. It's moral to put down the corrupt mages, it's moral to help well intentioned (like Cullen) templars. Neither is right or wrong in full. Innocents always get in the way. As for siding with the templars because of Anders? Never. I judged each mage I came acorss by their own merrit, not against Anders who was lost to Justice far long before he blew things up. Fractured Moonlight (talk) 20:02, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

You're one of the only people who I can agree with. Most people I think cannot see past the fact that the mages are being abused to see the fact that the Templars are needed as well, though both sides are wrong and need to change. I myself sided with the mages the first time around and hated siding with the Templars until I started to understand that neither way is right or wrong. However certain acts that were committed within those choices would have been wrong, like killing innocent mages. I didn't agree with the Rite of Annulment either, not just because of Anders, but it doesn't mean the Templars are evil just because they followed an evil leader anymore than it meant the other mages were evil because Anders blew up the Chantry and Orsino kept blood magic quiet. Xelestial (talk) 21:20, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

My canon Hawke (2-H male Warrior) ALWAYS made his choices to get max companion approval or disapproval (depending on which of their 2 skills is more useful) until they are 100, then choices that gave the best quest outcomes (like deciding to spare those 2 qunari convert elves for Arishok's approval (Aveline was alredy at 100 friendship)) then choices that gave additional benefits like skill points (except that Feynriel one - I think he might get important) and only after that the choices that fit his personality. And he sided with the Templars out of vengeance for Leandra (I hate Orsino for his cooperation of sorts), but spared little sister of course. In a way, my Hawke therefore is somewhat similar to me in personality... trying to make as much a personal profit out of anything, moral playing a very minor role. You might as well hate me for that if you must, I don't really care. Noctarius (talk) 19:20, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

The few choices you got in DA II, I didn't even think about it, really. Made playthroughs pro-mage, made playthroughs pro-templar. I feel that nearly every other choice in DA II is not more than an illusion. However, generally, that depends on the character I'm playing. I always try to have each of my characters be an individual personality with own morals. Lemonaidz (talk) 19:51, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Although I have played all three personalities to see how certain choices would play out, I would still do a few things the same regardless:

1) Always let Feynriel make his own path and seek training in Tevienter: Regardless of whether or not I wanted to truly take Torpors deal to improve my Hawke or not, in the end I always come back to the fact that I can make my Hawke powerful enough without his assistance; Attribute points are not a worthy enough price in exchange for the life of an innocent man, let alone a mage.

2) Let the mages from Starkhaven go free, but not at the price of Ser Thrask's life: If this was still Fereldan, and it was their Circle of Magi that these mages were to be sent to, then I would actually consider turning them over to the Templars, since I know there they would fair out much better. But this isn't Fereldan, this is Kirkwall. Here mages a less free then anywhere else, and are more likely to kill themselves from the Templars abuses, or be made Tranquil for the slightest of offenses, despite that going against all known Chantry law rather than be actually happy there. Regardless though, I still don't advocate the idea that a life must be lost, especially when there are other options available, which there are in the case of Grace and the other mages. There is always a way, you just have to make the effort in looking for it.

2) Help out my companions, regardless of my stance with them: The clearest example of this stance is, of course, Anders final companion quest "Justice"; I knew beforehand what he was planing, and I knew that many lives would be lost for it. But despite having this knowledge, I still could never bring myself to turn him down. This is not only because I was very pro-mage, but I think it was also because I thought "If this was me in Anders place, how would I react if the one person I truly trusted/loved didn't want to help me, knowing how important this is to me?" to which my response would be "I would be heartbroken...and may do something even more rash in response". This is why I wished there was an option in game to try and stop Anders from blowing up the chantry; convince Anders to stop this madness, and then in a twist of fate, have Meredith carry out the deed instead in an attempt to frame the circle mages, which leads me to my next point..

3) Always side in the name of the mages: No matter how many mages did prove the templars point that mages are dangerous and thus can never be free, and despite the fact that Anders does kill many innocents in the name of their freedom, I will NEVER side with the Templars. I do understand that many mages do abuse their powers, but at the same time, so do the Templars, as well as city leaders, nobles, law enforcers, and normal citizens. The only difference with mages is that they can't hide it as well as someone who doesn't have magic, and that's why I advocate in favor of them. They don't have the option to put their weapons away, and are often driven to such abuses by those who preform the same, but who are apparently justified to do so because they have the choice. And, although I wish there was a neutral option since I do understand that the Templars are a necessary order, at the same time I still can't really phantom why it has to be only the "faithful" that are permitted with such a task. Why are they the only ones that can do "what must be done"? The Grey Wardens seem to be fully capable of following the same motto, yet I don't see every member of the order being such pious pricks about it, even more so since they can recruit Blood mages into their ranks. I do believe that the mages must still in degree be supervised, if only a little, but what I don't agree with is the idea that only the Chantry can be the ones to do it, especially since they tend to advocate recruiting extremists a majority of the time.

But that's just me. Sevarian10 (talk) 21:00, August 2, 2011 (UTC)Sevarian10

To what you said about Anders...Technically, you DO convince him that there's another way, that what he is doing is wrong--at least in the rivalmance after the completion of the Justice quest-- but then Justice takes over and Anders doesn't even realize that happened. He also mentions that he keeps having blanks of memory more frequently, and then after the conversation he says "Maybe there is another way to change things from within the Circle" when you click on him, indicating that he seems to believe there's another way. Yet, everything happens anyway, which leads me to believe that Justice either convinced him or simply took over. My point in all this is, you can't convince Justice and by that point in the game there's not much left BUT Justice/Vengeance, so that plan couldn't work. I could see Meredith doing something like that but it took a catalyst to drive her that insane, and that catalyst was the Chantry blowing up, so I'm not sure if that would have happened at all, or just happened much later. Xelestial (talk) 21:15, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for me, I can never bring myself to Rival/rivalmace Anders; even if I'm being a bit of a prick, many of the things I do, like the stuff mentioned above, earns him friendship with me. It's part of the reason why I never get that previous conversation with him in Act 3 if you didn't max out his friendship/rivalry; by the beginning of Act 2, he is ALWAYS fully maxed, which is only rivaled by Varric's Friendship at that point. Plus, if you are in a Friendship with him, he seems to have more control over Justice, to the point that he never really gets the memory gaps he seems to get in a rivaly, so I would just figure that my Hawke would have been enough of a support line for him to see that there is another way. As for Meredith, it doesn't really seem to me that without the Chantry blowing up, she would have not done what she did, especially if you chose to side with Orsino in the beginning of Act 3; the look of utter rage on her face when the Grand Cleric told her to be a good little girl was proof enough to me that sooner or later, she would have turned on her, probably justifying it by saying that she was "unfit" to be Kirkwalls Grand Cleric, or that Blood mages had influenced her mind. It wouldn't have been as epic as blowing up the Chantry, but as long as the blame of her death could be pinned on the mages, then Meredith wins regardless. Sevarian10 (talk) 21:29, August 2, 2011 (UTC)Sevarian10

Even the scowl she seems to give you after defeating the Arishok and the Qunari, before she begrudgingly names you Champion, seems indicative that she sees enemies in pretty much everyone.--Hyskfmn (talk) 21:51, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

If what you say is true about the your Hawke would be enough of a support line for him (I've friended him, but never friendmanced him). then why doesn't that conversation come up? Perhaps it's because your Hawke supports him in everything he does that he never once doubts himself, whereas when you are in a rivalry with him, you're always doubting him and he goes crazy trying to get you agree with him and he starts to wonder if you're not right about some things at least, which is why that conversation pops up. It's sort of a catch 22. I get what you're saying about Meredith, and I do agree. (Sidenote: I find the Anders rivalmance totally hot. "I don't know whether to kiss you or kill you!" I felt bad at first, but it was totally worth it XD) Xelestial (talk) 21:36, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Just going to chip in here to note that Ser Kerras says Meredith had called for the Rite of Annulment before Anders blew up the Chantry. She already wanted/intended to kill all the mages. Anders' bombing just gave her a "valid" excuse.--DarkAger (talk) 21:36, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

I always try to choose what makes the most sense for my character, first. Still, I don't like playing either an outright villain or a saint who refuses ever to get his hands dirty, so my PCs are always at least slightly grey in nature.

In DA2, my first character was a good-hearted Diplomacy Hawke. She was my "good" character, but not 100% Lawful Good all the time. She killed Kelder rather than return him to his corrupt father, which I think is the better choice but still sort of grey. She let Martin set up his shady poison shop rather than leave him ruined and destitute. She agreed to kill Lord Harimann for the Red Irons, but backed out of the deal rather than actually kill him, and later admitted to the mercenary leader that she couldn't kill a man who had (claimed to have) helped her countrymen.

My Diplomacy Hawke was very much pro-mage, both for Bethany's sake and because I personally think pro-mage is the more moral side of DA2 anyway. Still, she tried to hold to a middle course, tricking the templars in Act of Mercy rather than killing them, arguing to Cullen that the templars needed to reform, and refusing to choose sides when Orsino and Meredith were fighting in front of the Viscount's palace. In the Last Straw she decided to defend the mages, which... again... I think is the only right call in that situation. The hardest call I made in that playthrough was sparing Anders immediately after his act of extremist violence that exemplified everything that my Hawke had spent her career fighting against. One of my hopes for future DA2 DLC's is that there will be some dialogue giving you the opportunity to explain that even if you did spare Anders, it was not because you condoned what he did.

My next Hawke was my "evil" character. Playing him was hard, because I tend to be too much of a softie to make the really dickwad choices like selling Feynriel out to a demon. Also, despite all the corruption that's also present on the mages' side, I still dislike the templars a whole lot more. Besides which, siding with the templars always involves an element of hypocrisy in my opinion. "The Circle is good enough for other mages, but it isn't good enough for me/my sister Bethany," what?

Anyway, my mercenary Hawke turned Feynriel into the Circle because that's what Arianni had hired him to do. Likewise, in Act of Mercy he turned in those mages to the Circle as well, simply because that was the job that Thrask had paid him for. With this Hawke I still had him help the mages when it didn't actually inconvenience him: he let both Feynriel and Ellie go free. In my opinion that's the "moral" choice on both counts, and he had nothing to gain from not letting them go. Selling Feynriel to the demon was just too dickish a choice for me to consider. I tend to be a softy that way, even when RPing an evil sort.

In the end my "evil" Hawke sided with the Templars, not because he wanted to Kill All Mages for something Anders did, but simply because he really wanted to be Viscount. Even so, I had my Hawke argue with Meredith that it wasn't too late to consider Orsino's final offer. I also spared the lives of those mages who surrendered (again, the only moral choice in that situation, IMHO) and of course he spared the life of Circle Mage Bethany, too. I didn't have him take the "I can still help you Orsino" dialogue choice, though. Once the man is standing in a field of dead mages about to turn into an abomination, I'd say it's a little late to be offering to let him off the hook. And, all of that was about the only way I could justify a templar playthrough, at least to myself.--DarkAger (talk) 21:11, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

See...I'm really torn between being a gamer and a "role-player" in cases like these. As Noctarius said, first and foremost — I make decisions/say things that affect what my companions think of me, again, based on my character type and personality, even if I personally don't "believe" what "I'm" saying, if that makes any sense. I recently played a humorous/charming Mage that had a rivalry with Fenris (cuz he just hates mages anyway), Anders (basically saying that though I believed in Mage freedom, I found his methods and attitudes too harsh), and Sebastian (I find his strict adherence to the Chantry stifling, which doesn't jive with a humorous Hawke), and I romanced Merrill. But never will allow Meredith to harm my siblings, and I never side with Petrice against the Qunari. Sometimes I will allow "Justice" to kill the Mage girl just to try and show Anders what he's become. Fat lot of good it does though...lol --Hyskfmn (talk) 21:37, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

I always play my first playthrough as myself and screw what anyone thinks. Then subsequent playthroughs I try to manipulate my character to a certain personality in order to become friends with whoever and whatnot. Some things I never do as well...it seems we all have our limits, even in a virtual world. Xelestial (talk) 21:41, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

You know...I never thought it entirely fair that siding against the mages is considered immoral due to 'slaughtering innocents' and siding against the templars isn't. As if >their< lives are free to take and the only thing to consider is whether they're actually needed or not. I mean, not >every< single templar in Kirkwall's circle participated in the cruel torturing of mages and if DAO canon has any value left (which, admittedly, is debatable), then being a templar doesn't automatically mean being thrilled about being in the order or even having had a choice. No matter which side you're on, you're going to kill innocent people. Yes, templars are trained to kill, so 'innocent' might sound strange, but, c'mon, every mage and their mother learns lethal fire spells, ice cones, whatever without having to look into blood magic once- they're not some kind of pure, helpless babies either. And even if YOU'd want them to, it's not as though the templars who might not agree with Meredith could all go Thrask-rebellion on the order all of a sudden...their lives are on the line and they have no possible way of knowing the outcome of the battle. Mages defeating Templars outside of Tevinter IS a complete novelty. Nobody expected that. Meredith was THE power in Kirkwall. So the 'moderate' Templars would have to risk their lives AND the lives of their families who will suffer the consequences of their actions for something that seems impossible to achieve. Who in their right mind and in posession of something they cannot stand to lose would rebel under these circumstances? There's no actual choice for them. Taking the lives of these individuals is just as unjust as killing the mages who had nothing to do with demons or Anders/Vengeance.

So, no, at least when it comes to the end of the game I'm never conflicted by the overall 'morality' of my choice, I just choose the option that suits my current character best, because in the end there is murder on both sides. Although I tend to believe that siding with the Templars allows you to save more lives in the end - the city will be relatively stable, you have to kill tons of mages anyway, even when siding with the mages and you get to spare the lives of some. There's some morality to saving as many lives as you can, too. Besides, DA2 is hypocrisy heaven, you can't really avoid it unless you go 'TEMPLAR'S SUCK, MAGES RULE, BLOODMAGIC DOESN'T COUNT' right from the start.91.22.159.199 (talk) 23:47, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Michael Largness (talk) 23:49, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. This is what I am trying to say. Neither choice is right. Not a single person was entirely guilty or innocent. Xelestial (talk) 00:25, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

"Just following orders" is not an accepted defense by soldiers in the service of tyrants, you know. But even if it was, the situations really aren't equivalent. The templars' plan, as explained by Meredith, is "Kill all mages." The mages plan, as explained by Orsino, is "Survive." On the pro-mage side, you have to fight the templars because they are attacking you (and the mages you agreed to defend). On the pro-templars side, you are attacking the mages because you have agreed to help Meredith to break into the Gallows and kill them. Again, the mages didn't break out of the gallows and try to kill Hawke and all his innocent little templar buddies. You broke into the Gallows because you are trying to kill them.

That really isn't the same situation at all.

Which is not to say I see mages v. templars as clean-cut, black and white, good and evil. We see more than enough bad folks on both sides. In the end game, there's certainly enough dangerous magic and demons and abominations running through the streets of Kirkwall that I can see why the average templar would be desperate to find and eliminate the cause of it all. And the templars do have a moral and religious duty to protect people from rogue magic. But killing the Circle mages still in the Gallows is a bit like trying to end crime and rioting after a major jailbreak by executing the prisoners who stayed in their cells.

That's why, to me, taking the pro-templar ending is the "bad" choice. I'd say it's the equivalent of burning down Amaranthine in Awakening. Can an argument be made that burning down Amaranthine is necessary, that it will save more lives (and kill more darkspawn) in the long run? Sure, I guess. And maybe that makes it the better choice, depending on your character. But I wouldn't call it the right thing to do. And I wouldn't say it's as morally justified a choice as, say, not burning down Amaranthine.--DarkAger (talk) 01:16, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Choosing the Templar ENDING does result in you participating in the Rite of Annulment, which I disagree with, but being pro-Templar is sort of a different thing. Unfortunately, I wouldn't want to help the mages and kill the templars anymore than I wanted to kill the mages. But BioWare doesn't give you the choice to walk away. And that pisses me off more than anything. There should have been a "eff you guys, I'm leaving, go ahead and kill each other" option. Xelestial (talk) 01:21, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Hehe! See, I've always equated that to the pro-mage ending. After all is said and done, Meredith gets fried, and the Champion and all his companions leave Kirkwall, I've always seen that as kind of a, "You're all despicable! I'm outta here, do what you will. See what I care." And now, as Verric pointed out, the world is on the brink of war and destruction, and now that you guys have thoroughly f-ed it up, you need the one person who can help you put it back together...yeah, good luck with that.--Hyskfmn (talk) 02:08, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is that it's an impossible choice between two equally undesirable outcomes. If you side with the Templars you're potentially condemning innocents to their deaths, and if you side with the Mages you're potentially destroying the rule of order and unleashing a torrent of unstable mages, demons, and abominations that can run throughout the city unchecked and unopposed. There is no way to win because we are never given the option for neutrality. (Destroy the corruption on both sides.) Michael Largness (talk) 01:29, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Very true. Man, was I ever longing for a third option ending.--DarkAger (talk) 01:50, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

I think we can all safely assume that a good 70% of the players that finished the game would choose to murder them both or run away. The mage one was the closest but you still had to kill templars. Xelestial (talk) 03:15, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Just Orsino and Meredith. A lot of Templars went rogue, too, by Act III, and Orsino's knowledge of Quentin and blood magic was abhorrent. Neutrality would have been a better option. Made me miss the Witcher saga. Quirkynature (talk) 03:24, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

If you could just kill those two, it would be ideal. Oh don't get me started on The Witcher. I really enjoyed that. NPCs hated you with a burning passion when you chose to be neutral, and neutral has it's risks as well as being one way or the other. I feel like BioWare was just being lazy by forcing us to choose after showing us that each side had it's wrongs and rights. Xelestial (talk) 03:30, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Each side had its wrongs and rights? No. On a first playthrough basis, all I understood was: mage=good, templar=evil. After about 2 playthroughs and plenty of visits here did I finally get the Templars' point of view. BW could have done better, yes, but on that specifically IMO. Proving that Templars aren't all bad AND really needed would have been challenging, given, but that would have proven that the whole 'all templars are either Alrik or Meredith' is a false premise. That point I got after debating whether Anders' actions were reprehensible or commendable.

Besides, why does the Champion have to take sides? Varric clearly states he's sick of the templars vs. mages crap. Isabela (I think) also states her distaste at having to pick a side. What if my Hawke is a Rogue? Can I not pick then? Quirkynature (talk) 03:37, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Remember this ending? I honestly wished for something like this, but nooooo. Bioware loves its binary choice. Dorquemada (talk) 04:29, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Something resembling GoW 3's ending would have been epic, but nooooo. Bioware loves its binary choice. Quirkynature (talk) 04:55, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

I've had 3 playthroughs but really only 2 mindsets going through them. Pro mage both support mages where they can without needlessly causing harm to templars. Like not killing Thrask for them to escape but tricking or killing the crazy bastard so they at least have a chance to get away. Then anti mage Hawke doesn't try to kill all mages but he's like Carver and thinks they're too dangerous to let them do as they please. Not as bad as Fenris though. None of them sacrifice Feynriel because they all have morals and want to help people. Most of the time they free Feynriel from his fear by making him tranquil, one of the pro mages was sort of a "tough love" kind of person and told him to shape up and master his power and helped him run off to Tevinter.

As for the very end you can find good and bad in both sides. Anders always dies for what he did though. Terrorism just isn't cool. The two times siding with mages were either because Hawke was a mage or the tough love one protecting little sister Bethany. Anti mage Hawke was largely vengeance driven because at every turn he's been attacked by blood mages, had his sister kidnapped by blood mages, had his mother murdered by a blood mage, and pretty much been fed up with every mage he's met give in to blood magic and do something stupid. Spared anyone that surrendered though.

And for the record, I liked the fact that you were rarely given room to tiptoe around situations and copout with the "I'm neutral" stuff. You're Hawke, the Champion of Kirkwall. It's your job to protect the city and everyone's looking to you to see what the fate of the city will be. You don't get the luxury of backing out of that responsibility. TKismyname (talk) 05:22, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Being neutral doesn't have to be a copout. Being neutral means you can always make the right choice and do what's best for the city without having to make the choice to work exclusively for one side. Michael Largness (talk) 07:43, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. I feel like being neutral is a way of saying it's too hard to choose something important so you do nothing. The world may not share that opinion, but it's what I feel. TKismyname (talk) 08:01, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

No way. Stop, discussion time. The beauty of neutrality is that if both decisions are bad you can then opt to kick both their asses and set the world down the path you know is right. Whether through negotiation or a greatsword to the skull.

A true hero cuts his own path! He doesn't disregard everything he's learned over the past seven years about the flaws and virtues of both sides, he should be up there in Meredith's face telling her to mend her ways or get the hell out, and if she can't be negotiated with, our hero should be grooming Cullen to take control when he inevitably has to put Meredith down. Our hero should also have brains enough to investigate the death of his mother, and when Orsino runs up to thank Hawke for cutting off Meredith's head, Hawke would be, "No! F*** you, Orsino! I know what you've been doing and I know you had the power to stop Quentin the whole time, and did NOTHING!" and cut his god damn head off too. Michael Largness (talk) 08:24, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see of the three personality types Hawke can be played as, siding with the templars as Diplomatic Hawke would be seen as a "necessary evil", that s/he's just doing it in order to restore order to Kirkwall. Snarky Hawke would be seen as somewhat indifferent to the whole situation, noted in the casually bored delivery of lines from female Hawke to Merrill explaining the "necessity" of siding with the templars. It's also possible that Snarky Hawke can see both sides as being full of crackpots with no sense of right or wrong, so having to choose a side would mean which kind of insanity s/he wants to deal with. And Aggressive Hawke would see this as either an opportunity to overthrow Meredith's control of Kirkwall or just exact bloody murder against the mages for whatever reason suits that kind of Hawke. (VicGeorge2K9 (talk) 13:29, August 3, 2011 (UTC))

Here's the fun thing I did with one of my PC playthroughs: I had Meredith and Orsino modded in as playable companions in the game and got my other companions to the point where I could participate in either campaign of The Last Straw, so being able to have Meredith and Orsino with me during that part, I had Meredith slay templars in the mage campaign and Orsino slay mages in the templar campaign. And in the end, they both helped slay their in-game selves. In the templar campaign, since Meredith and Orsino were in my party during the in-game Meredith battle, the templars ended up bowing before my Hawke and before them as well. Now Kirkwall will really be at peace, because my Hawke will be viscount and my Meredith and Orsino companions will be there as well in whatever roles they may end up occupying because nobody in-game even recognizes them. (VicGeorge2K9 (talk) 14:03, August 3, 2011 (UTC))