134 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

lx_theo wrote...

Valus wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

So your counter-argument is about an unrelated topic (or very minorly related)?

Considering that the 'big choice' is to side with the Templars as they ennact the rite or to side with the mages in opposition to it I think it is heavily related. Nice try though.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm going off the evidence presented to me by the story. If you care to assume that is your business, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from playing the game as they see fit. I'm just looking to get an answer as to why there is no evidence to support the mage side of things. If you could support your counter-argument with any factual evidence I would appreciate it, otherwise it is OT.

Yes, you are. Your assuming that the Rite is even needed.

The big choice isn't whether to do the rite, its whether or not to slaughter innocents.

That's the point. Whatever happened before, the Circle was not connected to what Anders did. There is for example no evidence of anyone aside from Anders and Hawke connected to it. Meredith wrongly incites the right of annullment. Cullen even protests, but not enough. And I am sure if the seekers or the chantry in orlais review the events later they will also see it so. Meredith was under the influence of the idol at that point anyway.  Meredith assumed the right where she didn't have a right to do it.

That's why it is wrong to side with the templars. Whatever you think about mages or bloodmages or templars or whatever, it is nothing but an unjustified slaughter of innocents. If someone feels like doing it anyway, by all means. But there is not really much to justify it. Not in that very moment, and even less later.

That's why my Hawke cannot side with Meredith. Even if 100 crazed bloodmages killed 100 of her mothers.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 21 mars 2011 - 01:52 .

[Valus]

lx_theo wrote...

Actually, I'll respond to how these are not...

- Meredith IS ruling the city. How any assumptions are needed shocks me.
- Ander's quest in act 2, you directly see a Templar, and get his documents, on the plan to turn every Mage tranquil over the next few years.
- She says it. Don't know what assumption is need here. Adn it has to do with her tactics to get in a situation to fulfill her duty. Its not an assumption, its the only reason she could have for doing it.
- In a world where they are treated less than human... Yes, desperation will be seen worse in the worst of areas
- This is first hand evidense from many sources. This is often considered proof enough that it is happening to some degree. If you ignore that, then you don't know how evidense works.
- He said he was made it as an example. need for assumption where?
- Self-Explanitory
- Like said, it was an attempt to grab more power (if there could be another reason, i can think of one)

Its not all directly connected to the mages, especially the tyranny, which was an indirect way to fulfill their duties by having enough power.

Meredith stepped in and took control of the city, so? Her motives are speculation along with everything else you just wrote. In fact the Ander's quest you speak of supports the case that the Knight Commander and the Grand cleric do not support drastic measures such as the 'tranquil solution'. We don't have any proof that the tranquil solution was ever enacted (even in an unofficial fashion) but we do have proof that it was officially rejected.

You could try bringing forth factual evidence rather than attempting to ridicule me on my supposed lack of knowledge on the subject. Testimonial evidence is super, it does not support a case however. In court it turns into a she said/he said spitting match and nothing comes of it.

[lx_theo]

Valus wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Actually, I'll respond to how these are not...

- Meredith IS ruling the city. How any assumptions are needed shocks me.
- Ander's quest in act 2, you directly see a Templar, and get his documents, on the plan to turn every Mage tranquil over the next few years.
- She says it. Don't know what assumption is need here. Adn it has to do with her tactics to get in a situation to fulfill her duty. Its not an assumption, its the only reason she could have for doing it.
- In a world where they are treated less than human... Yes, desperation will be seen worse in the worst of areas
- This is first hand evidense from many sources. This is often considered proof enough that it is happening to some degree. If you ignore that, then you don't know how evidense works.
- He said he was made it as an example. need for assumption where?
- Self-Explanitory
- Like said, it was an attempt to grab more power (if there could be another reason, i can think of one)

Its not all directly connected to the mages, especially the tyranny, which was an indirect way to fulfill their duties by having enough power.

Meredith stepped in and took control of the city, so? Her motives are speculation along with everything else you just wrote. In fact the Ander's quest you speak of supports the case that the Knight Commander and the Grand cleric do not support drastic measures such as the 'tranquil solution'. We don't have any proof that the tranquil solution was ever enacted (even in an unofficial fashion) but we do have proof that it was officially rejected.

You could try bringing forth factual evidence rather than attempting to ridicule me on my supposed lack of knowledge on the subject. Testimonial evidence is super, it does not support a case however. In court it turns into a she said/he said spitting match and nothing comes of it.

Wow, you just refuse to listen.

I said oppression and tyranny

For oppression, we have many first hand sources of this oppression happening from mages, templars, adns some citizens from the city alike about how bad it is, adn how much worse it even than other circles. Thatbis considered factual proof in any room of intellectual discussion on such matter, whetehr you like it or not. Its not an insult,. its you not excepting the fact because it damages your side. The tranquil solution was being administered at his level. While not approved, you see it going on within the templar order in that quest right in front of you.

For tyranny, we see Meredith forcing herself into the role of ruler and stopping any attempt to gain a proper ruler for years. This is made blatantly clear. Her testimonial proves that this is happening at a tyrannical level.

I love how you argue. You find whatever you have a hint of countering and say it, then just say the rest of the points are null adn void for whatever reason you decide to pull out. Right now it seems speculative adn assumptions are on your tongue. yet your own reasoning of what qualifies Mages as factual evidense is almsost exactly the same as mine. I'm not surprised you're ignoring it.

Modifié par lx_theo, 21 mars 2011 - 01:59 .

[Valus]

Yeah...I'll go ahead and stop feeding the trolls and get back on topic. I didn't post this so I could debate people's interpretations or assumptions.

back on topic;


Was it intentional to provide absolutely no concrete evidence that the Templars were doing anything wrong?

Was it also intentional to post almost every single npc mage we interact with as a maleficar?

[lx_theo]

Valus wrote...

Yeah...I'll go ahead and stop feeding the trolls and get back on topic. I didn't post this so I could debate people's interpretations or assumptions.

back on topic;


Was it intentional to provide absolutely no concrete evidence that the Templars were doing anything wrong?

Was it also intentional to post almost every single npc mage we interact with as a maleficar?

Wait... WHAT? Are you calling me a troll for providing a counter argument you ARE IGNORING?!

Your statement is incorrect, and your intent in keeping it that way is to shrug everything off. Almost all of what I have said is no more assumption than your examples. Howe about you try to prove that your statements are factual before you call other trolls for countering you.

[Icinix]

Valus wrote...

Was it intentional to provide absolutely no concrete evidence that the Templars were doing anything wrong?

Was it also intentional to post almost every single npc mage we interact with as a maleficar?

I imagine the proof is in some of the Templars themselves rebelling that the treatment was wrong...

As for the Mages turning to blood magic...that was stated numerous times that when pushed to desperate measures they had no other choice...you back someone against a wall, they'll either break down or fight with whatever they've got.  In this case, they'll turn to the one thing they have left.

There was a lot of grey though, and thats what made me love that particular story development so much.  There was no black and white.  There wasn't a clear cut paragon / renegade choice.  So I imagine that yes, it was very intentional to be vague and force people to make their own mind.

[HopHazzard]

The answer to you original question is yes. It was intentional. They don't want to make it clear which side is right. They want the player to decide which side is right for them.

[lx_theo]

HopHazzard wrote...

The answer to you original question is yes. It was intentional. They don't want to make it clear which side is right. They want the player to decide which side is right for them.

well, that only answers his second question from the OP.

[Valus]

HopHazzard wrote...

The answer to you original question is yes. It was intentional. They don't want to make it clear which side is right. They want the player to decide which side is right for them.

I think you are correct, obviously since it wouldn't be much of a choice otherwise. However my argument is why supply so much evidence to support the templars and almost no evidence beyond circumstantial evidence or supposition to support the mages.

[Lithuasil]

Valus wrote...


I think you are correct, obviously since it wouldn't be much of a choice otherwise. However my argument is why supply so much evidence to support the templars and almost no evidence beyond circumstantial evidence or supposition to support the mages.

There's plenty of evidence to support both causes. That said, Hawke being daughter, sister, lover, friend to various, and likely an apostate herself, will by default be a lot closer to the mages, then to the templars. And then there's the fact that players usually tend to go straight for the "those guys say they're opressed, they must be the good guys" option, without looking much into the conflict at hand. So I guess it all came out kind of balanced in the end (I at least still sided with the mages in 3 of 4 playthroughs)

[Phantom.Brave10]

Valus wrote...

Was it intentional to provide absolutely no concrete evidence whatsoever that Templars were doing anything wrong?

Was it also intentional to post almost every single npc mage you interact with as a maleficar?

Regardless of the individual player's opinion on what drove certain people to certain actions these things are merely speculative. No evidence is ever given that Templars or the circle forced mages to resort to blood magic. No evidence is ever given that templars are misbehaving in any way. We see zealotry in respect to the Qunari situation but never against mages or the circle as a whole. On the other side we see nothing but mages blowing up churches, going Frankenstien on your mom, posessing young templar recruits, killing thier wives and turning into abominations. We are given much evidence to support that circle mages cannot police their own, neither can Templars effectively police mages within Kirkwall any longer. The right of annulement seems more than justified at this point...not to mention far more justified than the situation we are presented with in DA:O.

I'm not seeing where the 'hard choice' at the end comes into play. Unless you are roleplaying as a villian or a maleficar yourself...then I suppose I see the appeal of siding with the mages.

I doubt this was the intent of the storytellers however.

Not helped by the fact that even when you help the mages, Orsino goes crazy. 
Kirkwall is ****ed. To put it nicely.

[Icinix]

Phantom.Brave10 wrote...

Valus wrote...

Was it intentional to provide absolutely no concrete evidence whatsoever that Templars were doing anything wrong?

Was it also intentional to post almost every single npc mage you interact with as a maleficar?

Regardless of the individual player's opinion on what drove certain people to certain actions these things are merely speculative. No evidence is ever given that Templars or the circle forced mages to resort to blood magic. No evidence is ever given that templars are misbehaving in any way. We see zealotry in respect to the Qunari situation but never against mages or the circle as a whole. On the other side we see nothing but mages blowing up churches, going Frankenstien on your mom, posessing young templar recruits, killing thier wives and turning into abominations. We are given much evidence to support that circle mages cannot police their own, neither can Templars effectively police mages within Kirkwall any longer. The right of annulement seems more than justified at this point...not to mention far more justified than the situation we are presented with in DA:O.

I'm not seeing where the 'hard choice' at the end comes into play. Unless you are roleplaying as a villian or a maleficar yourself...then I suppose I see the appeal of siding with the mages.

I doubt this was the intent of the storytellers however.

Not helped by the fact that even when you help the mages, Orsino goes crazy. 
Kirkwall is ****ed. To put it nicely.

Yep...and regardless of who you side with..Soverign The Lyrium takes control of Saren Meredith.

[Valus]

Lithuasil wrote...

There's plenty of evidence to support both causes. That said, Hawke being daughter, sister, lover, friend to various, and likely an apostate herself, will by default be a lot closer to the mages, then to the templars. And then there's the fact that players usually tend to go straight for the "those guys say they're opressed, they must be the good guys" option, without looking much into the conflict at hand. So I guess it all came out kind of balanced in the end (I at least still sided with the mages in 3 of 4 playthroughs)

I'd agree that there is incentive to support both causes but I don't see where there is evidence to support both. I guess maybe the writers felt incentive would be enough. Judging by forums apparently it was but I don't think they make a very strong case for the mages, or any case at all really aside from a few sob stories and creepy innuendos from the occasional templar.

[Lithuasil]

Valus wrote...

I'd agree that there is incentive to support both causes but I don't see where there is evidence to support both. I guess maybe the writers felt incentive would be enough. Judging by forums apparently it was but I don't think they make a very strong case for the mages, or any case at all really aside from a few sob stories and creepy innuendos from the occasional templar.

As I said - there's no need to make a strong cause here. Unless you take bethany in the deep roads, either you or your next of kin are in immediate harms way (and during the final decision have their life on the line). So by default, the incentive to support the mages, i.e supporting your sister or yourself, is a lot stronger then the incentive to support the safety of some npc-peasant, which is what the templars try to uphold.

Modifié par Lithuasil, 21 mars 2011 - 02:56 .

[Dhaunae]

Meredith is cast as a brutal dictator from Act 1, where you can overhear the recruits talking about how incredibly harsh her rule is.

Oh, and regarding Karl? "Officially, once a mage has passed the Harrowing and graduated from their apprenticeship, Chantry law forbids them from being made Tranquil."

They break their own law (and destroy a person) to try and trap a maleficar. Yeah, blood mages are bad, the Templars are no better.

edit: Though it does grate that there are so damned many mages you fight when the official position is that escaping from the Circle is rare. How the hell does almost every group in the city have a half-dozen mages on hand that they can just toss over walls to attack Hawke, then?

I really wish Bioware had retconned something in to explain why there are so many mages wandering about rather than sticking with the way DA:O set it up as mages nearly all being part of various Circles and the ones that weren't would have to keep a low profile. Which didn't even happen in DA:O.

Modifié par Dhaunae, 21 mars 2011 - 03:05 .

[Valus]

Lithuasil wrote...

Valus wrote...

I'd agree that there is incentive to support both causes but I don't see where there is evidence to support both. I guess maybe the writers felt incentive would be enough. Judging by forums apparently it was but I don't think they make a very strong case for the mages, or any case at all really aside from a few sob stories and creepy innuendos from the occasional templar.

As I said - there's no need to make a strong cause here. Unless you take bethany in the deep roads, either you or your next of kind are in immediate harms way (and during the final decision have their life on the line). So by default, the incentive to support the mages, i.e supporting your sister or yourself, is a lot stronger then the incentive to support the safety of some npc-peasant, which is what the templars try to uphold.

Understood. You just said evidence in your original post, was just commenting. I agree with everything you said except that there is no need to make a strong case for the mages, that is up for personal interpretation. For me there was a need to make a case for both. Judging from the evidence supplied in the game I feel this wasn't done properly.

[Retserof]

Valus wrote...
I'd agree that there is incentive to support both causes but I don't see where there is evidence to support both. I guess maybe the writers felt incentive would be enough. Judging by forums apparently it was but I don't think they make a very strong case for the mages, or any case at all really aside from a few sob stories and creepy innuendos from the occasional templar.

What do you mean there is no evidence to support both? Are the mages kept locked in the gallows, held against their will, and hunted down if they try to leave? Yes. This is not an assumption, this is fact.

What else is needed beyond that to make the case for the mages? Everything else is just trying to justify the Templar's treatment of them. Your decision is made based on whether or not you think their treatment is justified or not. The burden of proof is on the templars, not the mages (which is why there is primarily only evidence for the templar case). What use would it be to show that a mage didn't do anything wrong and just sat in his gallows cell reading books?

It becomes a fundamentally philosophical argument anyway, the evidence isn't provided in any concrete or statistical amount to make a decision in favor of the Templars. You either feel the many should be punished for the crimes of the few/the crimes they might possibly commit, or you do not.

Modifié par Retserof, 21 mars 2011 - 03:10 .

[Lithuasil]

Valus wrote...

Understood. You just said evidence in your original post, was just commenting. I agree with everything you said except that there is no need to make a strong case for the mages, that is up for personal interpretation. For me there was a need to make a case for both. Judging from the evidence supplied in the game I feel this wasn't done properly.

There was need to make a cause for both, but both players themselves, and Hawke herself can reasonably be expected to be heavily biased. And while there was evidence for both sides (as I mentioned a few posts further up), for the final choices to actually feel like choices, the templars needed a lot stronger cause. And even then, purely from a roleplaying perspective, siding with the templars after meredith evoked the right of annulment is only possible if bethany is dead, you're playing a warrior or rogue, and you're not romancing Merill or Anders. Meaning technically, the templars case would have needed to be even stronger.

[Valus]

Lithuasil wrote...

 And even then, purely from a roleplaying perspective, siding with the templars after meredith evoked the right of annulment is only possible if bethany is dead, you're playing a warrior or rogue, and you're not romancing Merill or Anders. Meaning technically, the templars case would have needed to be even stronger.

I don't see how. I ennacted the rite even with bethany as a warden, I even got her to grudgingly agree with it....Merill too. Of course, from a roleplaying perspective I would have torched Merill years ago.

[Lithuasil]

Valus wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

 And even then, purely from a roleplaying perspective, siding with the templars after meredith evoked the right of annulment is only possible if bethany is dead, you're playing a warrior or rogue, and you're not romancing Merill or Anders. Meaning technically, the templars case would have needed to be even stronger.

I don't see how. I ennacted the rite even with bethany as a warden, I even got her to grudgingly agree with it....Merill too. Of course, from a roleplaying perspective I would have torched Merill years ago.

Bethany agreeing is only possible because the writers didn't read their own Codex - the moment the rite of annulment is evoked, that's a death sentence on every mage within city bounds. So basically, unless all the variables I stated above are true, you're signing the death warrant of either your sister, your fiancee or yourself. And at that point, the side that expects that of me, should better have one hell of a good case.

[Valus]

Lithuasil wrote...

Bethany agreeing is only possible because the writers didn't read their own Codex - the moment the rite of annulment is evoked, that's a death sentence on every mage within city bounds. So basically, unless all the variables I stated above are true, you're signing the death warrant of either your sister, your fiancee or yourself. And at that point, the side that expects that of me, should better have one hell of a good case.

I'm not entirely sure a Grey Warden would be subject to that but whatever, if it's in the city limits then I gues she dies, I'm fine with that. The point I am making here is that, emotional connections aside, the game makes no strong case for the mages, which is a shame since plenty of opportunity was there. Therefor if you emotionally detach yourself from the game you see nothing but hordes of demons and bloodmages pouring out of the circle and very little if anything to support not wishing you could have culled the mage population the day you set foot in Kirkwall and save yourself the trouble of murdering scores of them piece by piece over the next 7 years.

[Svest]

Retserof wrote...

The burden of proof is on the templars, not the mages

This is exactly correct.  By their very nature of being human most people would agree that mages have a right to freedom.  The writers had to show just how dangerous mages can be to justify how they are locked away in a "normal" circle.  Add in Meredith's paranoia and they had to go even further.

However if the OP wants hard evidence of the templars going too far that's not just hearsay Karl is a perfect example.  As mentioned in the game, the rite of tranquility is only supposed to be used on mages that fail their harrowing.  This was not the case with Karl.  It really doen't matter why Karl was made tranquil, it wasn't because he failed his harrowing.  Therefore in making him tranquil the trmplars overstepped their traditional authority.

[Medhia Nox]

What's important to remember is that while oppression may have been happening in the Kirkwall Circle - it certainly wasn't happening in the Ferelden Circle. The reason Jowan (who WAS a blood mage) couldn't be in love with Lily was because it would compromise Lily - she already deceived a guard for the information to break into the repository.

Not a single mage in the Ferelden Circle mentions a thing about oppression - even Uldred doesn't necessarily cry about oppression in the Circle, he cries about being treated like a dog in the world. A valid complain - but doesn't actually have anything to do with the circle.

And as for "What mages don't say it's evil." Orsino calls it a Sanctuary several times.

Honestly - Orsino tells you that mages have been going out of the tower on midnight trysts with Thrask a lot. How oppressed could they really be?

And - blood mages are literally legion in the Circle - how oppressed were the mages really being if they could study blood magic?

I actually think the evidence suggests that the oppression was only against Blood Mages that were discovered - but the Circle was so corrupt, that the lies spread.

====

IF this corruption were so absolute - there would be no loyalists, no aequatarians, no lucrosians, and no isolationists - only libertarians and resolutionists.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 21 mars 2011 - 03:59 .

[Lithuasil]

Valus wrote...

I'm not entirely sure a Grey Warden would be subject to that but whatever, if it's in the city limits then I gues she dies, I'm fine with that. The point I am making here is that, emotional connections aside, the game makes no strong case for the mages, which is a shame since plenty of opportunity was there. Therefor if you emotionally detach yourself from the game you see nothing but hordes of demons and bloodmages pouring out of the circle and very little if anything to support not wishing you could have culled the mage population the day you set foot in Kirkwall and save yourself the trouble of murdering scores of them piece by piece over the next 7 years.

Point is, if I emotionally detach myself from a game like this, I'm missing the point. The game is about playing Hawke, and she brings a whole lot of emotions into the matter, most of which are likely biased pro mage.

[Valus]

Svest wrote...

Retserof wrote...

The burden of proof is on the templars, not the mages

This is exactly correct.  By their very nature of being human most people would agree that mages have a right to freedom.  The writers had to show just how dangerous mages can be to justify how they are locked away in a "normal" circle.  Add in Meredith's paranoia and they had to go even further.

However if the OP wants hard evidence of the templars going too far that's not just hearsay Karl is a perfect example.  As mentioned in the game, the rite of tranquility is only supposed to be used on mages that fail their harrowing.  This was not the case with Karl.  It really doen't matter why Karl was made tranquil, it wasn't because he failed his harrowing.  Therefore in making him tranquil the trmplars overstepped their traditional authority.

Can you show me where it states that the rite of tranquility is prohibited against mages who have not gone through the harrowing? I'm not arguing the point, I just don't recall ever reading it aside from what Ander's says. I agree that Anders is a fairly reliable source of info throughout the game but  I thought mages who failed the harrowing were killed, at least that is how I recall it being submitted by Alistair in DA:O but perhaps that was an isolated incident.

I agree that the burden of proof is on the templars, I'm also saying they have alot of proof to back up their claims.

But even so, I think this incident is a good example of factual evidence against the Templar which is why I opened this thread in the first place. Opposed to what some earlier posts have stated; I don't mind being wrong. So far this is the only piece of evidence i've seen to support that the templars were overstepping their authority or acting illegaly.