5 réponses à ce sujet

[fantasypisces]

 So maybe it's just me, but after beating the game, having sided with the mages, I just felt like a d**n fool and wanted to trash my character.

For the entire game, myself, anders, the first enchanter, some templars, family, friends, you name it, all go on about how you can't judge the many based upon the actions of the few. In this case, the few referring to blood mages.

I rivaled with Merril trying to get her to give up on blood magic, almost! (couldn't lock it) rivaled with Fenris telling him not all mages are bad. Basically throughout the game, just being understanding, standing up for others, etc.

Then I get to the final battle and almost every freaking mage I'm trying to help resorts to blood magic, or call on daemons for aid. Hell, even the first enchanter used insane blood magic to change into a giant freaking monster daemon thing.

After I beat the templars I wanted to turn around and kill all of those mages (if there were any left) simply because they made me look like an utter fool. 

I romanced Anders with my male hawke. Then even this once paragon of a mage becomes a terrorist (I almost threw my computer against the wall). Anyway, I decided to try and stay with him and try and keep him a bit calmer, keep doing the fight but not killing as many innocents. I spent 90 minutes with the game on pause trying to make the decision if I should stay with him (hey, its an RPG game!). I kept thinking he may be the exception, this is to preserve the freedom of mages, but then almost every single mage I see after making that decision is using blood-magic. 

Here's hoping the other circles aren't as crazy-stupid as Kirkwall's circle. Since I'm apparently still helping Anders in his fight.

I dunno, I just kept invisioning a cartoon character walking up to me, then beating me over the head with a sign that said "Idiot!". Because according to Dragon Age 2 (in Kirkwall at least) the many is the blood-mages, and the few are the pure (Bethany is it). I don't know if I can really include Anders in the "pure" category since he is essentially a terrorist on the run now (and I feel guilty for staying with him, but that's besides the point).

[David Gaider]

Just a comment about the mages-- it's said several times, by various people, that mages resort to the forbidden when they're up against a wall because they can. The templars use this as justification for their censure, but would the mages do that if they weren't up against a wall to begin with? Some might, others might not. Would Orsino have? Was he corrupt all along or simply preparing for an inevitable confrontation? Would the fact that only "some" be corrupt be enough justification not to censure them, since one cannot separate the bad from the good? It's a cyclical argument, with Anders taking the Gordian Knot solution which may or may turn out to be a solution at all.

Is either side really righteous? One could claim the mages, perhaps, but at the very end they are outnumbered and desperate and driven by that fear into becoming abominations and worse. One could also claim the templars, but were they simply following Meredith's orders? Is that ever an excuse? Obviously despite her growing insanity there was some kernel of truth to her suspicions.

You can claim it to be a crap sandwich decision if you like, and there's some merit to that if you were expecting the mages to be a simple choice-- but the idea is that neither can claim the moral high ground, with their lack of tolerance and patience their fatal flaws... a theme throughout the game. No easy answers, just as in DAO.

Whether you liked that or not, I guess I'll leave it for you to decide.

Modifié par David Gaider, 11 mars 2011 - 05:53 .

[David Gaider]

fantasypisces wrote...
So that's the main complaint, you hold the morale stance throughout the entire game of "don't persecute the many based upon the actions of a few" then when you get to the final battle the many are now the abominations/blood mages.

Really, all that might have been nice to see is that in the occasional room there are non-corrupted mages helping you fight. You hear many got away safely in the epilogue, and I would presume those to be the ones I was fighting for, but the appearance of the game does not show that.

That's fair. I think part of that was simply the demands of gameplay, ie. we could only put so many creatures on-screen at one time and those, more often than not, had to be the enemies you were facing. I would have liked to have seen more mages fleeing for their lives (ironically you do see this if you side with the templars, in the group that surrenders) but I guess we had to settle for those that were mentioned fleeing... and those you see being cut down who never turned into abominations at all.

By the way Mr. Gaider, can I ask who wrote Anders? I want to shake their hand (through a polite message I guess) about how the writing for him is well done. In the beginning he is a mage that is easy to love. Act 2 you start to feel bad for him, wanting to help him, and then in act 3 he has the easy potential to break your heart.  At first I thought it was really random for him to do what he did, but when you look back you can see the signs. His development was nicely paced for a story that spans many years, as opposed to some characters that don't quite change as much.

Jennifer wrote Anders, though I guess you could say we all had a hand in his character arc (especially with regards to how it played into the main plot). One of the story's themes is "freedom vs. security" (a little timely, I suppose, considering our own world's problems) and Anders was always meant to epitomize that side of it... both in terms of what is right about it and what can go very wrong.

Modifié par David Gaider, 11 mars 2011 - 06:37 .

[David Gaider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
In regards to freedom vs. security: In the end you are essentially made to choose between the extremes of endorsing terrorism or endorsing the police state. It's not a comfortable decision, but I don't think it came out of nowhere or anything. In that sense another theme of the game is escalation and proportionality.

I don't think Hawke is required to endorse either side, necessarily. As the Champion, Meredith doesn't allow you the luxury of backing out-- it's either "with us or against us", so while a player might happily endorse a side he or she might also be reluctantly dragged into the entire mess. And it is a mess. Though what Hawke does with that mess... well that remains to be seen.

[David Gaider]

Zalocx wrote...
His whole 7 years long rant about how mages with true freedom and power in Tivinter casually commit atrocities that only the most desperate Andrastan Circle mage would resort to spoke volumes more about the issue at hand than anything an apotate did.

Disturbingly that seems to stem from people wanting to one up their peers, a desire that is pretty deeply lodged in human/elvenkind. It just so happens some of these ambitious people can kill you with their minds

I wrote Fenris, yes. And his arguments about what happens when "the mages are in charge of themselves" are, in my mind, pretty effective with regards to those people who argue that Tevinter has it so much better. You'd be hard-pressed to find many mages there who weren't already on top of the pile who might agree... but such is human nature.

[David Gaider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Implicitly endorse, perhaps? I meant in terms mostly of public perception - as even the perceptive, intelligent, and probably better informed than your average resident of Thedas Cassandra has no idea as to Hawke's motives or character behind his/her decisions until Varric fills her in. Though re-reading I seem to have been making a different point.

Indeed. Think about it: from the outside, Hawke's actions could come across as positively nefarious, if one wasn't aware of his or her motivations or circumstances.