57020 réponses à ce sujet

[CatOfEvilGenius]

kromify wrote...

CatOfEvilGenius wrote...

Mila-Valentine helpfully gave this link

annulment illegal thread

edit: Hey Mila!  You could just post here yourself, you know.   We're friendly and don't bite.  Shhhh, nobody scare her away!

unless you want us to  

See, totally friendly!  Offering to bite people who are into that is generous and kind.


Ack, top of page!  Must find Andersbutt to post...

No Andersbutt here at all, but look, Ser-Pounce!  pic by AxelBat

Modifié par CatOfEvilGenius, 02 mai 2011 - 01:22 .

[sassperella]

CatOfEvilGenius wrote...

Mila-Valentine helpfully gave this link

annulment illegal thread

edit: Hey Mila!  You could just post here yourself, you know.   We're friendly and don't bite.  Shhhh, nobody scare her away!

David Gaider confuses me....

I've read a lot of his posts recently that seem to backpedal on a lot of what the game seems to say. I'm not saying he actually is backpedalling but I find a lot of what he says confusing, and contradictory. I know he says there's no official developer stance on the issue and that he's trying to show people that the argument isn't as clear cut as some are making out, but he does challenge some of the most common mage supporting arguments, giving the impression that we're lied to a lot in game. Such as mages are allowed to marry, just discouraged, though we never see it except with apostates such as Malcolm, and templars may just have a difficult job to do and are not necessarily oppressors and I can't remember what he said about the tranquil in another thread so don't want to misquote him, but I remember it surprised me. 
I agree with him entirely about not judging issues on a real world basis (tbh that was one of my issues with the chantry jenga that a lot of people just saw 9/11 in it and judged it based on that) but, in the case of mages - who I'm sure everyone agrees are indeed potentially dangerous and need some sort of control, taking away their rights as human beings is oppression.

So as I said... his posts confuse me.

[Ryzaki]

sassperella wrote...

CatOfEvilGenius wrote...

Mila-Valentine helpfully gave this link

annulment illegal thread

edit: Hey Mila!  You could just post here yourself, you know.   We're friendly and don't bite.  Shhhh, nobody scare her away!

David Gaider confuses me....

I've read a lot of his posts recently that seem to backpedal on a lot of what the game seems to say. I'm not saying he actually is backpedalling but I find a lot of what he says confusing, and contradictory. I know he says there's no official developer stance on the issue and that he's trying to show people that the argument isn't as clear cut as some are making out, but he does challenge some of the most common mage supporting arguments, giving the impression that we're lied to a lot in game. Such as mages are allowed to marry, just discouraged, though we never see it except with apostates such as Malcolm, and templars may just have a difficult job to do and are not necessarily oppressors and I can't remember what he said about the tranquil in another thread so don't want to misquote him, but I remember it surprised me. 
I agree with him entirely about not judging issues on a real world basis (tbh that was one of my issues with the chantry jenga that a lot of people just saw 9/11 in it and judged it based on that) but, in the case of mages - who I'm sure everyone agrees are indeed potentially dangerous and need some sort of control, taking away their rights as human beings is oppression.

So as I said... his posts confuse me.

In DAO as a female mage you can tease Teagan and he'll mention the PC having a spouse. The PC has a chance to say "If someone was willing to marry a mage." So I'm guessing it's allowed but looked down upon. 

[CatOfEvilGenius]

sassperella wrote...

CatOfEvilGenius wrote...

Mila-Valentine helpfully gave this link

annulment illegal thread

edit: Hey Mila!  You could just post here yourself, you know.   We're friendly and don't bite.  Shhhh, nobody scare her away!

David Gaider confuses me....

I've read a lot of his posts recently that seem to backpedal on a lot of what the game seems to say. I'm not saying he actually is backpedalling but I find a lot of what he says confusing, and contradictory. I know he says there's no official developer stance on the issue and that he's trying to show people that the argument isn't as clear cut as some are making out, but he does challenge some of the most common mage supporting arguments, giving the impression that we're lied to a lot in game. Such as mages are allowed to marry, just discouraged, though we never see it except with apostates such as Malcolm, and templars may just have a difficult job to do and are not necessarily oppressors and I can't remember what he said about the tranquil in another thread so don't want to misquote him, but I remember it surprised me. 
I agree with him entirely about not judging issues on a real world basis (tbh that was one of my issues with the chantry jenga that a lot of people just saw 9/11 in it and judged it based on that) but, in the case of mages - who I'm sure everyone agrees are indeed potentially dangerous and need some sort of control, taking away their rights as human beings is oppression.

So as I said... his posts confuse me.

The posts in that thread made sense to me.  I don't think he was talking about specific actions, such as Ser Alrik's abuses.  I think he was simply saying that the templars, and much of the populace, believes there is a valid reason to segregate and confine mages.  He wasn't saying he believes it, just that ingame people do.  I don't think he was writing about specific abuses, like templars beating and raping novices.  That's very clearly abuse and oppression.  I think he was just addressing the idea of having Circles, not how they are run in practice.

I didn't quite like his use of the word innocent and dangerous.  I completely agree with him that mages are inherently dangerous, and can be possessed against their will, but I wouldn't say that's "not innocent".  A 5 year old with a gun is very dangerous, but innocent.  However, I understand why he got upset with people saying "innocent mages shouldn't be locked up".  He was saying "templars believe *dangerous* mages need to be locked up".

When playing DA2, I got the very strong impression that the devs left the choice of who to side with very much up to the player, and that both sides had merit.  I usually side with the mages, but I'm screaming at them the whole time to be less stupid and stop with the blood magic already.

Just my take on D.G. posts.

[Amondra]

  

Almost Anders butt

http://elywen.devian...et=336#/d3c77dg

[sassperella]

CatOfEvilGenius wrote....

When playing DA2, I got the very strong impression that the devs left the choice of who to side with very much up to the player, and that both sides had merit.  I usually side with the mages, but I'm screaming at them the whole time to be less stupid and stop with the blood magic already.

just quoting the bit I'm commenting on as I don't know how to bold it

My husband didn't play DA:O or Awakening but he played DA2. He had a very different perspective without the prior knowledge and history that DA:O gives you. By the end of the game he wondered how anyone could be sympathetic to mages as the game systematically taught him that mages were bad and turned to blood magic. He saw very few 'good' mages and even some of those (Grace originally seems 'good' ) went cazy on him. So with the propensity of blood mages and demons and Fenris's conversation about Tevinter where mages were allowed freedom and what happened to them,  he found it very hard to sympathise with them at all even though he had an open mind at the start - and he knows I sympathised with the mages.

He murderknifed Anders and went with the templars-  though he did qualify that with Anders the guy wanted to die and it was a mercy killing not done out of hatred.

But it would be interesting to see how many people who hadn't got invested with the history of the game in Origins still sided with the mages.

[CatOfEvilGenius]

sassperella wrote...

CatOfEvilGenius wrote....

When playing DA2, I got the very strong impression that the devs left the choice of who to side with very much up to the player, and that both sides had merit.  I usually side with the mages, but I'm screaming at them the whole time to be less stupid and stop with the blood magic already.

just quoting the bit I'm commenting on as I don't know how to bold it

My husband didn't play DA:O or Awakening but he played DA2. He had a very different perspective without the prior knowledge and history that DA:O gives you. By the end of the game he wondered how anyone could be sympathetic to mages as the game systematically taught him that mages were bad and turned to blood magic. He saw very few 'good' mages and even some of those (Grace originally seems 'good' ) went cazy on him. So with the propensity of blood mages and demons and Fenris's conversation about Tevinter where mages were allowed freedom and what happened to them,  he found it very hard to sympathise with them at all even though he had an open mind at the start - and he knows I sympathised with the mages.

He murderknifed Anders and went with the templars-  though he did qualify that with Anders the guy wanted to die and it was a mercy killing not done out of hatred.

But it would be interesting to see how many people who hadn't got invested with the history of the game in Origins still sided with the mages.

This!  If you don't read the notes from the Band of Three about Kirkwall being a hellmouth with a thin veil and history of bloodmage experiments, it might be hard to see that it is an extreme case.  Maybe there's a poll somewhere.  I too am curious about this.

I wonder if game developers assume a certain amount of their customers played DAO?  Probably, right?

To make something bold, put {b} at the beginning and {/b} at the end, but use square brackets instead of curly braces.

edit: I would tell him that Tevinter isn't the only "mage freedom" option.  Slavery is not a consequence of mage freedom, it's just part of Tevinter's horrid culture, and the most powerful end up being the slave owners.  That happens to be mages, but if the Chantry ruled rather than the magisters, you can bet Tevinter templars would have lots of slaves.  If Tevinter had Qunari tech, it would be the people with cannons who had slaves.

Modifié par CatOfEvilGenius, 02 mai 2011 - 02:01 .

[kromify]

i gathered that a lot of people helped the mages on their first playthrough. then after they thought about it they sided with the templars on the next PT's.
wonder what that says about people...

[Ryzaki]

kromify wrote...

i gathered that a lot of people helped the mages on their first playthrough. then after they thought about it they sided with the templars on the next PT's.
wonder what that says about people...

That they changed their minds? 

I ended up doing the same thing. 

Really though Orsino harverster was when I threw my hands up and went  "Done. I'm DONE." and swapped sides. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 mai 2011 - 02:03 .

[Dunizel]

CatOfEvilGenius wrote...

When playing DA2, I got the very strong impression that the devs left the choice of who to side with very much up to the player, and that both sides had merit.  I usually side with the mages, but I'm screaming at them the whole time to be less stupid and stop with the blood magic already.

Same here, to be honest I side with the mages not really beacause I want to oppose the Templars as an order. Sure, a lot of things are going wrong in Kirkwall, or in the Circles in general, but some kind of instruction and control on mages is due.
 
I oppose Meredith and the Annulment against people that didn't do anything.

That said, the Templars as an order have probably too much power because they are backed up by religion too. If you involve religion, common people and overzealous templars might be easily biased and as long as they are thought that mages are cursed, the situation can't improve. 

Ryzaki wrote...

Really though Orsino harverster was when I threw my hands up and went "Done. I'm DONE." and swapped sides.

Same xD I really wish that if you sided with the mages you didn't have to fight with Orsino. It doesn't make sense in that ending. But I guess they needed two boss fights anyway, for both sides >.>

Modifié par Dunizel, 02 mai 2011 - 02:08 .

[Ryzaki]

Dunizel wrote...
That said, the Templars as an order have probably too much power because they are backed up by religion too. If you involve religion, common people and overzealous templars might be easily biased and as long as they are thought that mages are cursed, the situation can't improve. 

BAH. Stupid..BAH my post was eaten.  

Needless to say I agree with the quoted bit. Seperation of church and state was implemented for a reason. And dehumanizing people isn't the way to get them to restrain themselves. As Jacob said "You treated them like animals and BIG SHOCK they become animals." 

And yeah the whole two bosses thing was lame. The least Orsino could've did was take out the templars before trying to rip my head off. <_<

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 mai 2011 - 02:10 .

[CatOfEvilGenius]

Dunizel wrote...

CatOfEvilGenius wrote...

When playing DA2, I got the very strong impression that the devs left the choice of who to side with very much up to the player, and that both sides had merit.  I usually side with the mages, but I'm screaming at them the whole time to be less stupid and stop with the blood magic already.

Same here, to be honest I side with the mages not really beacause I want to oppose the Templars as an order. Sure, a lot of things are going wrong in Kirkwall, or in the Circles in general, but some kind of instruction and control on mages is due.
 
I oppose Meredith and the Annulment against people that didn't do anything.

That said, the Templars as an order have probably too much power because they are backed up by religion too. If you involve religion, common people and overzealous templars might be easily biased and as long as they are thought that mages are cursed, the situation can't improve. 

(snip)

Exactly.  There isn't enough unbiased, impartial oversight of the templars.  Not sure there's any, actually.  In Kirkwall, there isn't even biased oversight because Elthina fails at grand-cleric'ing.

Modifié par CatOfEvilGenius, 02 mai 2011 - 02:11 .

[SurelyForth]

Bleargh. Not even going to get into it.

Modifié par SurelyForth, 02 mai 2011 - 02:17 .

[Ryzaki]

SurelyForth wrote...
Yeah, but Meredith is just as crazy and it's a combination of her oppressive regime and the Right of Annulment that drives him to become a harvester. Even Fenris gets that. 

Hm? What did Fenris say? 

And I never doubted Meredith was just as crazy. That Harvester trick using Quentin's research was just the straw that broke the camel's back for me. This of course doesn't mean I expect everyone to feel the same. It was just my breaking point. (My Hawkes breaking point for the most part was Grace. Ungrateful Bastard.) 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 mai 2011 - 02:20 .

[dpMeggers]

I think Tobrius/Ser Carver said it best "Order is not served by caging the best of us."

Yes, mages are dangerous. Yes, they need to be trained to resist demons, not use horrible magics, not accidentally kill a hundred people, etc. But they don't need to be locked away and treated as subhuman (or subelven I suppose although elves are already treated as subhuman - whole different story there) simply because one woman interpreted the words of another woman to mean "Mages are inherently evil and should be locked away for ever and ever amen." Ser Carver let Malcolm go for a reason, presumably because he had proven, in some way or another, that he was capable of being free. I don't think Malcolm is the only exception to the rule. This is what I think. But I don't live in Thedas and I can only make judgements from what little I know of that world.

What my Hawkes think, by the way, may be something else entirely.

[SurelyForth]

Ryzaki wrote...

SurelyForth wrote...
Yeah, but Meredith is just as crazy and it's a combination of her oppressive regime and the Right of Annulment that drives him to become a harvester. Even Fenris gets that. 

Hm? What did Fenris say? 

And I never doubted Meredith was just as crazy. That Harvester trick was just the straw that broke the camel's ack for me. This of course doesn't mean I expect everyone to feel the same. It was just my breaking point. 

I don't remember the exact thing he says, but when everyone is wondering why he'd turn on them he says something similar to what the other companions can say about Orsino being driven to desperation. Seriously, it's been awhile. I just remember hearing it and being incredibly surprised that he'd actually say something like that.

[Ryzaki]

SurelyForth wrote...
I don't remember the exact thing he says, but when everyone is wondering why he'd turn on them he says something similar to what the other companions can say about Orsino being driven to desperation. Seriously, it's been awhile. I just remember hearing it and being incredibly surprised that he'd actually say something like that.

Ah. 

I wish Fenris' comments were overriden by someone else's so often

[Dunizel]

Hm, about Orsino.
Yes, I can understand why he goes crazy. Siding with the Templars the sequence makes sense.
But the timing of his transformation siding with the mages is wrong. We were alone, we had just killed a wave of templars. If for some reason the scene was "templars keep sawrming on us, we are overwhelmed, Orsino goes crazy, kills every templar in harvester-mode and we have to kill him" it would have been fine, really.

Modifié par Dunizel, 02 mai 2011 - 02:25 .

[Ryzaki]

Dunizel wrote...

Hm, about Orsino.
Yes, I can understand why he goes crazy. Siding with the Templars the sequence makes sense.
But the timing of his transformation siding with the mages is wrong. We were alone, we had just killed a wave of templars. If for some reason the scene was "templars keep sawrming on us, we are overwhelmed, Orsino goes crazy, kills every templar in harvester-mode and we have to kill him" it would have been fine, really.

I think it was supposed to be something similar but the game's execution was incredibly poor. (Like all the apprententices magically dying even though in the actual battle only one of them died  ) 

And yeah having to kill the Templars and then Orsino was annoying. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 mai 2011 - 02:27 .

[leggywillow]

Dunizel wrote...

Hm, about Orsino.
Yes, I can understand why he goes crazy. Siding with the Templars the sequence makes sense.
But the timing of his transformation siding with the mages is wrong. We were alone, we had just killed a wave of templars. If for some reason the scene was "templars keep sawrming on us, we are overwhelmed, Orsino goes crazy, kills every templar in harvester-mode and we have to kill him" it would have been fine, really.

I think that's another example of gameplay/story segregation.  It does come across as a pretty severe overreaction, since my Hawkes were thinking "What are you talking about?  We took out that one wave of templars pretty easily, actually.  I haven't broken a sweat."  I think we're supposed to assume that they are being overwhelmed and outmatched by the templars, though the game doesn't really express that.

[dpMeggers]

Dunizel wrote...

Hm, about Orsino.
Yes, I can understand why he goes crazy. Siding with the Templars the sequence makes sense.
But the timing of his transformation siding with the mages is wrong. We were alone, we had just killed a wave of templars. If for some reason the scene was "templars keep sawrming on us, we are overwhelmed, Orsino goes crazy, kills every templar in harvester-mode and we have to kill him" it would have been fine, really.

I think siding with the mages there's supposed to be a lull between waves of templars and he looks around at all the dead mages he's trying to protect, sees the templars coming up the ramp/bridge thing (they appear at the end of the cutscene) and is all like *despair* -> *Harvester*. That's how I interpreted it anyway. It's like he's sick of being able to do nothing, and if he can't win the fight he can at least take down as much of the other side as possible.

[ipgd]

sassperella wrote...

David Gaider confuses me....

I've read a lot of his posts recently that seem to backpedal on a lot of what the game seems to say. I'm not saying he actually is backpedalling but I find a lot of what he says confusing, and contradictory. I know he says there's no official developer stance on the issue and that he's trying to show people that the argument isn't as clear cut as some are making out, but he does challenge some of the most common mage supporting arguments, giving the impression that we're lied to a lot in game. Such as mages are allowed to marry, just discouraged, though we never see it except with apostates such as Malcolm, and templars may just have a difficult job to do and are not necessarily oppressors and I can't remember what he said about the tranquil in another thread so don't want to misquote him, but I remember it surprised me. 
I agree with him entirely about not judging issues on a real world basis (tbh that was one of my issues with the chantry jenga that a lot of people just saw 9/11 in it and judged it based on that) but, in the case of mages - who I'm sure everyone agrees are indeed potentially dangerous and need some sort of control, taking away their rights as human beings is oppression.

So as I said... his posts confuse me.

He purposefully designed the conflict to be ambiguous and contentious. He plays devil's advocate because his personal stake as the writer is in the difficulty, tension and drama of the issue, not whatever is "morally right". His challenges are a defense of the narrative, not an endorsement of oppression. In fact, he never says anything about what he thinks is right, because all that matters in a narrative is what is interesting. If it really were that easy, it wouldn't be.

[CatOfEvilGenius]

dpMeggers wrote...

I think Tobrius/Ser Carver said it best "Order is not served by caging the best of us."

Yes, mages are dangerous. Yes, they need to be trained to resist demons, not use horrible magics, not accidentally kill a hundred people, etc. But they don't need to be locked away and treated as subhuman (or subelven I suppose although elves are already treated as subhuman - whole different story there) simply because one woman interpreted the words of another woman to mean "Mages are inherently evil and should be locked away for ever and ever amen." Ser Carver let Malcolm go for a reason, presumably because he had proven, in some way or another, that he was capable of being free. I don't think Malcolm is the only exception to the rule. This is what I think. But I don't live in Thedas and I can only make judgements from what little I know of that world.

What my Hawkes think, by the way, may be something else entirely.

There were several suggestions way back in the thread about what to replace the Circles with.  If I recall, someone said keep the Harrowing, keep the schooling, but let mages integrate into the populace once they pass it.  Make the templars a specialized police force, not jailers, and remove the religious condemnation of magic.

Anyone know of a youtube video wtih Fenris reacting to Orsino/Harvester?  I would love to see Fenris being unstupid for once.

[kromify]

CatOfEvilGenius wrote...

Anyone know of a youtube video wtih Fenris reacting to Orsino/Harvester?  I would love to see Fenris being unstupid for once.

Fenris... not... being stupid antimage? what is this madness!?

[CatOfEvilGenius]

kromify wrote...

CatOfEvilGenius wrote...

Anyone know of a youtube video wtih Fenris reacting to Orsino/Harvester?  I would love to see Fenris being unstupid for once.

Fenris... not... being stupid antimage? what is this madness!?

From a few posts up:

SurelyForth wrote...
I don't remember
the exact thing he says, but when everyone is wondering why he'd turn on
them he says something similar to what the other companions can say
about Orsino being driven to desperation. Seriously, it's been awhile. I
just remember hearing it and being incredibly surprised that he'd
actually say something like that.

Fenris' blanket condemnation of all mages because he suffered at a Tevinter magister's hand just grates on me.  Especially after he caves and accepts a demon's offer while my mage and Anders don't.  I would appreciate the character so much more if I saw he was capable of seeing reason eventually.  The party banter about "some mages are strong, Hawke is strong" just doesn't do enough for me.  Seeing Fenris say something reasonable about Orsino being desperate would be satisfying.  (I'm still quite angry with Orsino, of course.)

edit: I'm not unsympathetic to Fenris.  His initial "all mages are teh evilz" attitude makes sense.  Just not after six years with Hawke or Bethany, and Anders, who while crazypants, isn't enslaving anybody.

Modifié par CatOfEvilGenius, 02 mai 2011 - 03:11 .