204 réponses à ce sujet

[JohnstonMR]

I'm playing a Mage, and I try to play him close to my own view: The idea of holy soldiers who watch over the mages in case one of them goes to the dark side is good. The near-slavery of the Kirkwall circle is bad. I don't support Anders' action (which I've been spoiled on, dangit--my own fault, really), and he'll pay for it.

[Akjosch]

Tirigon wrote...

Akjosch wrote...

So, why not pick the third option?

Become an abomination?

Depends - is it an option?

I can see at least two alternatives:

* Kill them all, let Maker sort them out.

* Ignore them both

[Tirigon]

Akjosch wrote...


Depends - is it an option?

I doubt it. Would sure make for an impressive ending, though, if you become like a second Flemeth only with a more awesome beard and f*ck em all over in Dragon-shape.

I can see at least two alternatives:

* Kill them all, let Maker sort them out.

* Ignore them both

Dunno, wars have a way of forcing you down the "if you´re not with us you´re against us and we shoot you" road.

[Akjosch]

Tirigon wrote...

Akjosch wrote...


I can see at least two alternatives:

* Kill them all, let Maker sort them out.

* Ignore them both

Dunno, wars have a way of forcing you down the "if you´re not with us you´re against us and we shoot you" road.

That's why I love Sheridan's choice at the end of the Shadow War (fourth season of Babylon 5) so much. When faced with the choice to side with one of two ancient, very powerful races - one representing Order, the other Chaos, basically - his answer was, and I quote:

"GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR GALAXY, BOTH OF YOU!"

And they did.

[Akka le Vil]

Tirigon wrote...

So, basically you are saying it´s ok to oppress them all because they MIGHT be evil and decide to blow you up?

No, what I'm saying is that it's okay (and normal and even desirable) to keep in check danger. You don't let anyone walking on the street with a minigun and a belt of dynamite that can randomly blow up, right ?
The problem is that it's impossible to dissociate the danger of the mage from the mage itself - save by making him a Tranquil, which is not really less oppressive than keeping him under scrutiny for life.

But of course, in a game it's okay to let potential living bomb walk in the street - we're players, not inhabitant of the game world, and it's not actually our lives, our families or real people's lives that are on the line, it's easier to be the white knight and forget the casualties that irresponsabilities cause

Ok, ok, I guess that means it´s ok for me to shoot anyone I don´t like because they might beat me up one night when I´m too drunk to aim?

Funny, that's EXACTLY the OPPOSITE in fact. You don't even understand your point and the point of the guy you're arguing against ?

[AngelicMachinery]

I think the templars maybe right, every mage was an abomination or blood mage... accept Hawke and Bethany. If the captian of the gaurd wasn't bat**** insane... it would have been easy to side with them.

[Lithuasil]

Akka le Vil wrote...


No, what I'm saying is that it's okay (and normal and even desirable) to keep in check danger. You don't let anyone walking on the street with a minigun and a belt of dynamite that can randomly blow up, right ?
The problem is that it's impossible to dissociate the danger of the mage from the mage itself - save by making him a Tranquil, which is not really less oppressive than keeping him under scrutiny for life.

But of course, in a game it's okay to let potential living bomb walk in the street - we're players, not inhabitant of the game world, and it's not actually our lives, our families or real people's lives that are on the line, it's easier to be the white knight and forget the casualties that irresponsabilities cause

Actually, this is why I like the conflicts presented in thedas so much - 
it's perfectly reasonable, especially with most of your family dead, and Fenris at your side, to acknowledge just how much can go wrong with magic (and lets face it, it always does), and side with the templars.

On the other hand, the more you get involved, the more you can also be expected to side with the mages, both in the "I sure as hell don't want that happen to apostate-me" and in the "My name is Inigo Hawke, you took my sister, prepare to die" variety.

[Dean_the_Young]

I ended up siding with the mages for very personal reasons, Sister, despite everything else. There are some people who will put small things before big things, very true.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

So, basically you are saying it´s ok to oppress them all because they MIGHT be evil and decide to blow you up?

Depending on your definition of oppression, that's exactly what we do with people who can be incredibly dangerous against their will, or have shown a willingness to be incredibly dangerous.

Hence why quarantine zones and penitentiaries exist. All lives being equal, the ones with the greater danger towards others, aren't.

Ok, ok, I guess that means it´s ok for me to shoot anyone I don´t like because they might beat me up one night when I´m too drunk to aim?

Nope. However, if you had a built-in suicide vest (that, magically, wouldn't necessarily kill you), we'd certainly keep you away from large crowds of people without that same means of force.

Drastic example here, admittedly, but that´s what happens if you think your reasoning through. Oppressing an entire group of people because they COULD potentially bring harm to someone is always wrong.

Since you're always violating the rights and privilages and safety of somebody whether you do anything or not, you're always going to be wrong.

Therefore, be less wrong.

Besides of that, if I roleplay some peasant am I really afraid of bloodmages and demons? Probably yes.

But wouldn´t you agree that I´m much more afraid of bandits who rob and kill me just for fun and are much more common. After all, why would an all-powerful mage even care for me?
They´re more the big-bad-wolf kind of scary than an actual threat to me.

Which is why bandits are actively hunted down and exterminated, while mages are idealy hunted down and detained. Even though the mages retain the power to do a lot more damage.

While there's certainly something to the argument that mages are less a threat than the common bandit, there's also the matter of weighted dangers. A common bandit is, well, common, but far easier to counter. A rouge mage, even if he/she isn't an abomination, isn't.

It´s only the kings and warleaders who need to fear mages, because they´re the only ones who can stand up to you without an army of their own.

I'm sure Redcliffe, and the non-mages of Tevinter, completely agree.


Simply because mages are the only individuals who can endanger kings doesn't mean that kings are the only individuals mages endanger.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 15 mars 2011 - 09:59 .

[the_one_54321]

From all that I have read thus far, I am by far in favor of the Templars and the Chantry. Not that I think they are all that great. But brutally slaughtering mages seems to be just what the doctor ordered. Including one mage in particular.

[Tirigon]

[quote]Akka le Vil wrote...

[quote]Tirigon wrote...

So, basically you are saying it´s ok to oppress them all because they MIGHT be evil and decide to blow you up?[/quote]
No, what I'm saying is that it's okay (and normal and even desirable) to keep in check danger. You don't let anyone walking on the street with a minigun and a belt of dynamite that can randomly blow up, right ?
The problem is that it's impossible to dissociate the danger of the mage from the mage itself - save by making him a Tranquil, which is not really less oppressive than keeping him under scrutiny for life.[/quote]
Keeping under scrutiny is not equal to keeping them imprisoned in circles though.

See, the mages must undergo the Harrowing to prove they can resist the demon´s temptation and control themselves, that should be enough.

There is no point either in COMPLETELY outlawing some schools such as bloodmagic either, Merril is living proof that it can be used for good reasons too, and so is the player if you choose to become a bloodmage (which is possible both for the Warden and Hawke).

Lastly I´m all for keeping specialists trained to combat mages (aka the templars) but they shouldn´t keep them in prison but stay spread throughout the country to be ready to act only if really necessary.
Much like anti-terrorist forces in real life act in an emergency and don´t imprison anyone who is able to shoot a gun.


[quote]But of course, in a game it's okay to let potential living bomb walk in the street - we're players, not inhabitant of the game world, and it's not actually our lives, our families or real people's lives that are on the line, it's easier to be the white knight and forget the casualties that irresponsabilities cause [/quote]

Re-read the second part of my post:[quote]
Besides of that, if I roleplay some peasant am I really afraid of bloodmages and demons? Probably yes.

But
wouldn´t you agree that I´m much more afraid of bandits who rob and
kill me just for fun and are much more common. After all, why would an
all-powerful mage even care for me?
They´re more the big-bad-wolf kind of scary than an actual threat to me.

It´s
only the kings and warleaders who need to fear mages, because they´re
the only ones who can stand up to you without an army of their own.
[/quote][/quote]
[quote]
[quote]Ok, ok, I guess that means it´s ok for me to shoot anyone I don´t like because they might beat me up one night when I´m too drunk to aim?[/quote]
Funny, that's EXACTLY the OPPOSITE in fact. You don't even understand your point and the point of the guy you're arguing against ?
[/quote]

Yes I do and it´s not the opposite. I feel threathened by those guys, so instead of staying ready to defend me if necessary I go for the preemptive strike, readily accepting that my actions may harm innocents who would never have been a threat to me or anyone.
It is the exact same thing the templars do.

[Treasure Woman]

I will always side with the mages. Mostly because I do NOT want to kill my sister, Bethany and I can't stand Meredith. >

[Tirigon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Depending on your definition of oppression, that's exactly what we do with people who can be incredibly dangerous against their will, or have shown a willingness to be incredibly dangerous.

Hence why quarantine zones and penitentiaries exist. All lives being equal, the ones with the greater danger towards others, aren't.

Of course. It is really sad though. I know we´re not supposed to discuss politics, but let me say that I very much dislike this standard of procedure.
As long as they don´t do sh!t, let them walk free, as soon as they do, shoot em. Problem solved, and it´s cheaper than keeping them in prison for the rest of their lifes.

Of course that doesn´t apply to quarantines because of diseases, just to avoid misunderstandings.

Nope. However, if you had a built-in suicide vest (that, magically, wouldn't necessarily kill you), we'd certainly keep you away from large crowds of people without that same means of force.

I guess that´s why cars are forbidden, after all they kill innocents all the time (in Germany, where I live, a drunk driver killed 4 people just this weekend, by the way). Oh wait- cars are legal.
Ok you need a licence, but then again, I´m not opposed to the mages having to prove their ability to control their power by the Harrowing, which is sort of like the "licence".

Since you're always violating the rights and privilages and safety of somebody whether you do anything or not, you're always going to be wrong.

Therefore, be less wrong.

Sorry, but that´s bull. There´s no magic force driving you to violate someone´s rights, it is your (or more likely the government´s, but they´re people too) choice.





Lastly, always remember that one thing: If you were a mage, would you like to be imprisoned, constantly being watched and threathened to be stripped of all your emotions and free will?

Modifié par Tirigon, 15 mars 2011 - 11:45 .

[Akka le Vil]

Tirigon wrote...

Keeping under scrutiny is not equal to keeping them imprisoned in circles though.

Scrutiny is useless. It's not because you check sometimes on the guy who wear an explosive belt that it will make any less dead when it will go boom.

See, the mages must undergo the Harrowing to prove they can resist the demon´s temptation and control themselves, that should be enough.

And how exactly can Harrowing be forced upon mages if they are not confined into a Circle ?

There is no point either in COMPLETELY outlawing some schools such as bloodmagic either, Merril is living proof that it can be used for good reasons too, and so is the player if you choose to become a bloodmage (which is possible both for the Warden and Hawke).

"Hey, this guy went to school with a loaded AK-47 and didn't kill anybody, it obviously prove that you should not outlaw guns in school"

I can't believe that you actually made this argument. Mind-control magic, should be allowed ? I... am at a loss of words.

Lastly I´m all for keeping specialists trained to combat mages (aka the templars) but they shouldn´t keep them in prison but stay spread throughout the country to be ready to act only if really necessary.
Much like anti-terrorist forces in real life act in an emergency and don´t imprison anyone who is able to shoot a gun.

I'm pretty sure that anti-terrorists forces don't let people walk with bazookas on their shoulders and don't wait for them to shoot at people to stop them.

Re-read the second part of my post:

I've read it, and it just fall square on the part you quoted.
You fail at grasping that a mage is not just someone with a sword. That's Anders reasoning, and it's missing the whole point of what danger a mage potentially is.

Yes I do and it´s not the opposite. I feel threathened by those guys, so instead of staying ready to defend me if necessary I go for the preemptive strike, readily accepting that my actions may harm innocents who would never have been a threat to me or anyone.
It is the exact same thing the templars do.

Actually it's, again, the total, exact opposite.
It's to AVOID people "shooting at random on others" that mages are cloistered in Circle of Magi.
Yes, many of them would never had caused harm.
Problem is, many more people would have been harmed by each of them who would have. And there is no way to know which ones are dangerous just by looking at them.

When you see how regular people are afraid of other people with no more power than them, just with a different skin, or opinion, or culture, and how societies can launch into wholescale slaughter just because they don't like "them", I still say that Chantry treatment of mages in Thedas is downright gloriously humane and lenient.
In real life, every single mage would have been burned on a pyre at the slightest hint of magic ability (and many more non-mages would have been too).
You compare between "believable" possibilities, not utopistic ones

Lastly, always remember that one thing: If you were a mage, would
you like to be imprisoned, constantly being watched and threathened to
be stripped of all your emotions and free will?

If you were a non-mage, would you like to spend your whole life in fear of being killed by some random abomination sprouting out of your neighbour, or knowing your will can be revoked at any time, anywhere, because someone wanted to practice his blood magic ?

Of course. It is really sad though. I know we´re not supposed to discuss
politics, but let me say that I very much dislike this standard of
procedure.
As long as they don´t do sh!t, let them walk free, as soon
as they do, shoot em. Problem solved, and it´s cheaper than keeping
them in prison for the rest of their lifes.

Oh yeah, let's them walk free while we know they are dangerous, and shoot them once they've killed/maimed/raped someone. Never mind the victims, after all they only serve to prove that you can shoot at someone who was already a known threat.
<_<

The definition of irresponsability, putting life of others at risk.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 15 mars 2011 - 11:49 .

[FellowerOfOdin]

<-

Mages need to be controlled. They bear incredible might and a lot of them pursue evil deeds with such might thus we have to control and, if necessary, kill them for the greater good. In recent past, the Circle of Magi proved that he could not be trusted as its First Enchancer willingly let a blood mage in the tower live without even thinking about telling the templars and thus fulfilling his duty. This blood mage almost killed a Teyrn and caused great misery by his evil force.

The Circle of Magi proved being unable to control mages by peaceful means and often proved being untrustworthy thus it's up to us, the Templars, to protect the weak and innocent by looking out for any evil caster.

[Suron]

Dragon Age mages are akin to Marvels Mutants.

and the only way I can see anyone really supporting Templars are those who roleplay their characters a certain way...If we jsut use OUR outlook in our decisions I doubt many, if any, actually would support them.  Though I'm sure there are those that would.

Modifié par Suron, 16 mars 2011 - 12:13 .

[Travie]

If the mage/templar supporter ratio was 10:1... I would not be surprised.

Modifié par Travie, 16 mars 2011 - 12:13 .

[Lotto]

mages suck. little girlie men. where's your axe, bro?

[Eternal Phoenix]

Look at my sig. I support the Templars.

[IanPolaris]

At the risk of a possible spoiler, the biggest problem I have with supporting the Templars at the very end is that the Knight Commander in a fit of lunacy is blaming and wants to destroy the circle for a crime it did not commit. That is unconscionable by any standard. Even Knight Captain Cullen of all people agrees it's unconscionable.

-Polaris

[Tirigon]

Akka le Vil wrote...

"Hey, this guy went to school with a loaded AK-47 and didn't kill anybody, it obviously prove that you should not outlaw guns in school"

Actually, yea. Seeing as those assh**les who run amoc and shoot people at school are not stopped from doing so, I believe that allowing everyone to be armed will actually reduce violence.
You don´t start a fight if the other guy carries a gun

Thing is, outlawing  weapons means the "good guys" won´t have them while the criminals simply ignore the law.
But let´s continue this topic via PM please, it´s really leading too far away:)

When you see how regular people are afraid of other people with no more power than them, just with a different skin, or opinion, or culture, and how societies can launch into wholescale slaughter just because they don't like "them", I still say that Chantry treatment of mages in Thedas is downright gloriously humane and lenient.
In real life, every single mage would have been burned on a pyre at the slightest hint of magic ability (and many more non-mages would have been too).
You compare between "believable" possibilities, not utopistic ones

Yea I guess you´re actually right about this one. But just because many people are stupid doesn´t mean I need to agree with it.

On the other hand, the mere fact that mages are "contained" proves they´re harmless. If they were even half as bad as the templars make them out to be they would have wholesale slaughtered, or mind-controlled all templars and their supporters long ago.

If you were a non-mage, would you like to spend your whole life in fear of being killed by some random abomination sprouting out of your neighbour, or knowing your will can be revoked at any time, anywhere, because someone wanted to practice his blood magic ?

Well that certainly would suck. But then, chances are that there´s some good mage living in the town too and acting as "police force", so to speak, who would protect me from abominations, and all other threats too, much better than a common military force.

also, let me quote Isabel:
I’m more likely to be shanked in a bar than eaten by an abomination. You
can hear those coming from a mile away. "Grr. Argh!" "Oh, is that an
abomination coming to eat us? We should get out of here!"

[Rattleface]

I'm a Templar supporter.

I supported the mages for the achievements.

[MrWakka]

Personally I am not a fan of either. BioWare makes a compelling case for the mages being the under dog, and on my first run I sided with them, but the ending... well it altered my perceptions.

Every opportunity they are given, they turn to bloodmagic, go nuts and try to kill everyone, including allies.

Unfortunately while i'd like to side with the templars, lets face it, in DA2 they are perceived as nearly insane. Yet, upon reflection, from my first playthrough there seems to be fewer individual templars who are nuts compared to mages who go abomination. For those who have beat the game your likely aware of even trusted mages who do... odd things.

So I suppose in reflection, and with deeper consideration i'd say I am pro-templar. The mages screw up every chance you give them and do stupid things, only validating the fear of them, and the templars duties. If they had a reasonable leader, there would be no one who would go with the mages given what they do. Of course, with a reasonable leader most of the plot wouldn't have occured, so there is that.

Annulment time on my second playthrough.

[Drussius]

Lithuasil wrote...
"My name is Inigo Hawke, you took my sister, prepare to die"

I think I just found the first name of my Hawke for playthrough 3, in which I will purposely get Bethany killed... This had me laughing for about five minutes. Thanks. I needed that.