1283 réponses à ce sujet

[Falls Edge]

Why would you put something so important in a side conversation...?

That completely changes how you view her character.

[PsychoBlonde]

tmp7704 wrote...

SgtElias wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

I'd say one of the worst parts of the circle is that mages aren't allowed to have famillies. Wynns baby was kidnapped from her, and it was totally allowed.

Agreed. If that was me trapped in there, it would probably have been the end of me; I'm pretty sure I would have been executed for all the things I did afterward trying to get my baby back.

That was the moment in-game where I turned from being Chantry-sympathetic to wanting to torch the whole organization and everyone in it.
. . . I have since come back toward the middle a tad.

Can't remember where it was said, but think it was Mr.Gaider that pointed out large part of that is the concept that family members are sort of easiest way to manipulate a mage, by a demon or such -- just as much as you'd do anything to get your baby back, your baby would likely do everything to save you from danger. Even if say, that "anything" involved allowing self to get possessed.

Not just that, but magical ability runs in families.

[AlexXIV]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

@Ziggeh ... well that would be slavery, no?

Mmmm, well, that's complicated, because if you ask the guy afterwards he'd probably say no. It's certainly not a happy set of circumstances, but I think it's a more complex question that equalling slavery.

Actually if I think about it, it is worse than slavery. Because you know, slaves can be set free. I doubt you can untranquil a tranquil.

No, but you could give them a sex change operation which would hopefully . . . um . . .

Okay, I've totally forgotten where I was going with this.  Something about a man trapped in a woman's body.  Clearly I need to eat and chill out before my attempts at lame jokes summon the Woo with the Hammer.

Actually I don't know if they have sex at all. I guess they don't have the 'desire'.

[LobselVith8]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Falls Edge wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

I'd say one of the worst parts of the circle is that mages aren't allowed to have famillies. Wynns baby was kidnapped from her, and it was totally allowed.

Wut. I missed this dialogue option...? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

It's a banter between Wynne and Alistair, it only happens if you hit a banter trigger with both of them in the party.

David Gaider also mentioned that mages can't raise their own children:

David Gaider wrote...

Mages within the Circle are permitted to marry, but it's impractical with outsiders and they also must get permission from the Chantry (so it might be considered a reward for good behavior). Even so, the culture within the typical Circle of Magi tends to make mages unwilling to marry. The policy on fraternization will depend on the individual Circle-- some forbid it, while others do not, though in either case it still occurs. Considering mages live outside normal culture, they also consider themselves free of cultural conventions (especially those who were raised in a Circle from a young age) and thus tend to be quite liberal in their views.

Whew! Okay-- verbose answer of the day. Time for coffee.

...unless they are Grey Wardens!

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Yes, married or not the child of a mage is taken away by the Chantry.

Would the same happen if the mage was also a Grey Warden, such as the Warden-Commander of DA:O and Awakenings?

A mage who is not part of the Circle is not subject to the will of the Chantry. So, no.

[PsychoBlonde]

Falls Edge wrote...

Why would you put something so important in a side conversation...?

That completely changes how you view her character.

Because it was a static situation you, the Warden, could not do anything about.  You don't run into Wynne's son.  And I think this actually makes the world seem bigger than just you.

[Falls Edge]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Falls Edge wrote...

Why would you put something so important in a side conversation...?

That completely changes how you view her character.

Because it was a static situation you, the Warden, could not do anything about.  You don't run into Wynne's son.  And I think this actually makes the world seem bigger than just you.

Asking about the history of the wardens and griffins is also static and not something you could change, oh well thanks for mentioning that guy/girl.

[moilami]

Falls Edge wrote...

Zavox wrote...

Falls Edge wrote...

Zavox wrote...

Hmm? I seriously can't see how there can be a discussion on this subject...

Sure, mages are more likely to be the cause of destruction than a regular person is. Yet, that doesn't mean one should lock up ALL mages. It'd be the same in nowadays society to lock up a certain population group based on numbers that show they have a higher crime rate than average. One should not convict an entire population group based on the wrong doings of certain members of that group. Because if you do, you're convicting persons to exile who might never do anything wrong. It's convicting because of genetics, not on intent or action.

Edit: bad example, what I mean is that as mages stand now they're relatively harmless, but it's been shown that if they were allowed to build themselves up they could lord it over everyone else, and only other mages could stop them.

One example in history (Tevinter Imperium) hardly shows evidence that such is so. Besides, they were toppled. Also, nor does it give evidence that mages can only be stopped by other mages, I even beg to differ as Templars can definately defeat mages. Even if one needs 10 men to defeat 1 mage, there's only so much mages. Definately less than 10% seems to be a mage.

Zavox the ones that the templars are taking down are the culturally weak, dumbed down mages that the chantry has tried so hard to create, notice that morrigan and her mother had no problem killing templars.

Also, you don't even need the historical precedent to see how the mages have acted, quite a few have resented the position they've found themselves in, and they've all made different decisions some have chosen the peaceful route(peaceful secession), others have decided to hate themselves because of religious scripture, others have run and escaped the tower, turning either toward evil/forbidden magic, or leading lives on the run to ensure that they'll never gain in power or establish themselves in the world.

Other mages have chosen pacts with demons attempting to become powerful enough to drive off the shackles of the templars, to be 'immune' from the fear that they feel towards them, a lot of the mages are afraid and some want to be individually so powerful that no one can take them away from their homes again, they want to go where they want to go, they're susceptible to demon's because of these insecurities and weaknesses like other people, except they can use fireballs in THEIR WEAKENED state.

It's just kind of complicated I guess, good writing.

That what you said in the last paragraph is included in root "mages can kill people".

But that "they want to go where they want to go" is new argument. Thanks, added.

[PsychoBlonde]

AlexXIV wrote...

Actually I don't know if they have sex at all. I guess they don't have the 'desire'.

Or they only go in for one-night-stands with strangers.  Tranquil don't have emotions, but do they still feel pain or pleasure?  I mean, you'd assume their nervous system still works--hot and cold, pain and pressure.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...
History of Circle codex (mages were segregated because of a nonviolent protest)

Which happens some time after Emperor Drakon, who according to the other entry you mentioned, set them up. Presumably the circle existed prior to the segregation in some form.

LobselVith8 wrote...
The History of Chantry: Part Four (where the first Orlesian Emperor created the Circle of Magi, the Order of Templars, and the Chantry of Andraste).

The first Orlesian Emperor who fought that second blight. As I said, it's not terribly neat, the RPG text does imply that it was the saving and not just the worth (though it does say help saving) that led to autonomy that led to the circle, and you've got to figure he's dead by then, but it could definitely be interpreted in a way that both are true.

edit: just read the ulrded entry on the wiki that implies that it's the mages who control who th circle supports, as well as acting as a policing force. For what that's worth.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 04 février 2011 - 01:45 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Falls Edge wrote...
Asking about the history of the wardens and griffins is also static and not something you could change, oh well thanks for mentioning that guy/girl.

Er, IIRC you don't ask her about that, she tells you the story trying to make a point.

[SgtElias]

tmp7704 wrote...

Can't remember where it was said, but think it was Mr.Gaider that pointed out large part of that is the concept that family members are sort of easiest way to manipulate a mage, by a demon or such -- just as much as you'd do anything to get your baby back, your baby would likely do everything to save you from danger. Even if say, that "anything" involved allowing self to get possessed.

I suppose some people would allow themselves to get possessed to retrieve a child, but I'd argue a lot wouldn't. Allowing oneself to be possessed is pretty obviously the end of you as a person, and the end of your ability to look after/protect your child. Also, unless everyone in the tower is a sociopath, I don't think they'd want a townful of people to die simply so they could chase down their baby.

And I understand the concept, and understand that the Chantry, at least officially, thinks it protects the mage as well as the common folk. I also disagree with it. Emphatically. And I assume I am not the only one that would fight tooth and nail, literally, to get back my baby.

However, that does not mean I'm going to comdemn a bunch of innocent people to get what I want.

[Eveangaline]

Falls Edge wrote...

Why would you put something so important in a side conversation...?

That completely changes how you view her character.

Frankly the search for Aneiran should have been a search for her son....

Although, I guess there'd be no way to find him, since the last time she saw him he was crying and covered in uterus-juice.

It could be she just doesn't bring it up often, it must be a very painful topic for her.

[Falls Edge]

Moilami you do realize I was being sarcastic when I said that right? It was intentionally said stupidly to add it into that article, I was pointing out that if you write anything the way you wrote it on the list, of course it looks stupid.

[Falls Edge]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Falls Edge wrote...
Asking about the history of the wardens and griffins is also static and not something you could change, oh well thanks for mentioning that guy/girl.

Er, IIRC you don't ask her about that, she tells you the story trying to make a point.

Noted, still pretty important as far as things go, the point of having coversations with companions is to get to know more about them and the world that they live in, not having something as emotionally charged as having your child taken away shouldn't be a side note, it's like darth vider saying at the end of episode two "oh yeah, also, I'm your father LOL" After cutting off lukes arm instead of before.

[moilami]

Falls Edge wrote...

Moilami you do realize I was being sarcastic when I said that right? It was intentionally said stupidly to add it into that article, I was pointing out that if you write anything the way you wrote it on the list, of course it looks stupid.

I can remove your name of it, no probs, if you want. However it is still very valid argument among other, and it is authentic so to say and not my invention based on what I have observed.

[Falls Edge]

moilami wrote...

Falls Edge wrote...

Moilami you do realize I was being sarcastic when I said that right? It was intentionally said stupidly to add it into that article, I was pointing out that if you write anything the way you wrote it on the list, of course it looks stupid.

I can remove your name of it, no probs, if you want. However it is still very valid argument among other, and it is authentic so to say and not my invention based on what I have observed.

Oh no, keep it there, I enjoy the attention.

[AlexXIV]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Actually I don't know if they have sex at all. I guess they don't have the 'desire'.

Or they only go in for one-night-stands with strangers.  Tranquil don't have emotions, but do they still feel pain or pleasure?  I mean, you'd assume their nervous system still works--hot and cold, pain and pressure.

Well if you help some of the tranquil that are used as sort of batteries by abominations they say something along 'Thanks, that was unpleasant'. I actually don't know if they can feel pain and pleasure. Physical probably but without ability to translate it to an emotion. So they could say this is pain or pleasure but not if they like or dislike it? I don't know. They could reason that they should dislike pain since it would mean it can harms their function.

[tmp7704]

SgtElias wrote...

Allowing oneself to be possessed is pretty obviously the end of you as a person, and the end of your ability to look after/protect your child.

That's true, but just the same it's not uncommon for normal people to make the same choice -- and save their child at the cost of their own life, in various threatening situations. Or life of their parent if it's reverse. The cold reasoning of "but what happens after" frequently goes out of the window.

Modifié par tmp7704, 04 février 2011 - 01:53 .

[Ziggeh]

AlexXIV wrote...

Actually
if I think about it, it is worse than slavery. Because you know, slaves
can be set free. I doubt you can untranquil a tranquil.

It's a lobotomy, essentially, but even then it's only a rough parallel because the circumstances differ. You know the exact effect for one, and with the lyrium thing it's more self serving.

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...
edit: just read the ulrded entry on the wiki that implies that it's the mages who control who th circle supports, as well as acting as a policing force. For what that's worth.

Consider that the Chantry itself is caught up in the Civil War which means Gregoir as local Knight Commander has been hung out to dry.  Given his existing relationship with Irving, if Irving decided to take a side and contract out to Loghain, I don't think Gregoire would have said no....as long as Gregoire wasn't told about the rest of it.

Even if he was, what would Gregiore do about it?  There aren't enough templars to enforce a rite of annulment and apparently the local KC doesn't have the authority to order one (although the Grand Cleric certainly does).  In short, the Fereldan Civil War gave Uldred a golden opportunity to emancipate the Tower by force if necessary (but he did try politics first and it nearly worked) on the assumption there would be little the local Templars could do about it (and Uldred was almost certainly correct in that assessement).

So, in this case I'd say that the Senior Enchanters had de-facto control of the tower at the time but only because the chantry was hamstrung by the civil war.

-Polaris

[PsychoBlonde]

Falls Edge wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Falls Edge wrote...
Asking about the history of the wardens and griffins is also static and not something you could change, oh well thanks for mentioning that guy/girl.

Er, IIRC you don't ask her about that, she tells you the story trying to make a point.

Noted, still pretty important as far as things go, the point of having coversations with companions is to get to know more about them and the world that they live in, not having something as emotionally charged as having your child taken away shouldn't be a side note, it's like darth vider saying at the end of episode two "oh yeah, also, I'm your father LOL" After cutting off lukes arm instead of before.

Yeah, but having companions that tell you their entire life story makes the world feel about as big as the party camp.  Keep in mind that her having a baby was long enough ago that he would be as old as Alistair.  Even if she'd raised him herself, she might not have brought the kid up to the Warden in direct conversation.  I've had coworkers that I've worked with for YEARS and never knew whether they were married or had kids.

Pretty much everything that the companions tell you about is stuff you either a.) ask about or b.) is relevant to the plot or is otherwise brought up in some way.  My Warden for much of the game kind of assumed Sten had a wife and kids somewhere, and found the whole convo with him about the Tamassarans a bit shocking.

[SgtElias]

tmp7704 wrote...

That's true, but just the same it's not uncommon for normal people to make the same choice -- and save their child at the cost of their own life, in various threatening situations. Or life of their parent if it's reverse. The cold reasoning of "but what happens after" frequently goes out of the window.

I had a different thought I was trying to portray, so I should have been clearer. I meant that once you were possessed, you'd then no longer be able to keep your child safe, thus invalidating your own sacrafice. Would some people do it anyway? Sure. Another reason why I think it's not a great plan to just cart off every child born to a mage.

Neither solution is full-proof. I suppose the debate is just on what everyone thinks to be the lesser of two evils.

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...

So, in this case I'd say that the Senior Enchanters had de-facto control of the tower at the time but only because the chantry was hamstrung by the civil war.

Feasible, but it still supports the RPG text.

I'm not saying that text is definitely canon of anything, just that it doesn't contradict anything I know, and my knowledge on the topic is pretty limited at this point. You say there are numerous in game contradictions? Would save me looking. My data drives borked or I'd plow through the relevant content to see.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 04 février 2011 - 02:01 .

[Zavox]

Falls Edge wrote...

Zavox the ones that the templars are taking down are the culturally weak, dumbed down mages that the chantry has tried so hard to create, notice that morrigan and her mother had no problem killing templars.

Makes no sense, for how can Andraste have had any hope of winning against the Tevinter Imperium if those (not culturally weak) mages cannot be defeated? None, ergo, they can be defeated.

Also, you don't even need the historical precedent to see how the mages have acted, quite a few have resented the position they've found themselves in, and they've all made different decisions some have chosen the peaceful route(peaceful secession), others have decided to hate themselves because of religious scripture, others have run and escaped the tower, turning either toward evil/forbidden magic, or leading lives on the run to ensure that they'll never gain in power or establish themselves in the world.

Yet again, you cannot fault an entire populace for the wrong doings of a few or many. The Tevinter Imperium is the only example so far that had mages as the dominant class that also exerted that dominance (in a dangerous way). That however doesn't mean that's what would always happen if they are set 'free'. If it were, Germany should've still been under allied control, just in case.

Other mages have chosen pacts with demons attempting to become powerful enough to drive off the shackles of the templars, to be 'immune' from the fear that they feel towards them, a lot of the mages are afraid and some want to be individually so powerful that no one can take them away from their homes again, they want to go where they want to go, they're susceptible to demon's because of these insecurities and weaknesses like other people, except they can use fireballs in THEIR WEAKENED state.

Still doesn't give you the right to subject mages because of the wrong doings of other mages. It in no way shows that every single mage is guilty and/or dangerous, therefore, you're convicting innocents prematurely.

[Osena109]

 I have love hate  relationship with mages as in i love to hate them all jokeing aside the only mage i have played was a Arcane warrior/Spirit healer  and both of those specs are not in DA2 i belive so i won't be playing a mage any time soon