231 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

Ngoctu wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

You don't need to be a mage to be a deranged killer. Look at the serial killers in our world. Adolf Hitler, Zodiac, Son of Sam, BTK, Jack the Ripper, the DC Snipers. Did they have magic?

Just because the person who killed Leandra was a mage doesn't mean I'm gonna be ignorant enough to focus on that one part of him.

So just because A Naz-i killed Hebrish we dont have to think Naz-i are bad? is the Ideology that is bad
and a blood mage ideology when possesed by a demon is to kill/use people as he please

the ideology of templar is not to kill mage it's to protect mage form themselves and protect the people of the city


We are at the point when even if u are not Naz-i but protect Naz-i you are guilty because u are protecting an ideology
so if you are mage and PROTECT demonic-bloodmage for whatever reason you are protecting someone that has as ideology to kill innocent

Templar has a bad leader but the ideology is not to torture Mage.

Are you sure you're old enough to play this game?

[WhiteKnyght]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Well from my perspective it looks like people just focus on mages because they are different. Yes some awful crimes in the game are committed by people with magic, but what about all the dozens of crimes, thefts, and murders committed by non-mages?

It wasn't a mage who murdered Seamus, it was a Revered Mother who wanted to start a war. It wasn't a mage who was killing elven women for being too beautiful and saying "The demons made me do it", it was a politician's son who was crazy. It wasn't a mage who destroyed Highever and murdered the Couslands, that was Rendon Howe, an ambitious bootlicker.

For every crime a mage commits, many more are committed by normal people. But supersticion and fear makes people focus on the mages.

And I'm not ignoring that, however freeing the mages will make them just as likely as to commit those acts as anybody else, the only difference is that they'd be a bigger threat because of it.

Let's hypothetically assume there's no risk of possession.

What if Rendon Howe was a mage? He could've used blood magic to manipulate the Couslands, he could've destroyed their castle using magic and summoned demons to assist him. What if Sister Petrice used blood magic to control a group of Qunari to kill some citizens to cause the war?

Mages aren't immune to sin as everybody else, the only difference is they have super powers that put them in a position where they could greatly influence things a lot more than a non-mage. Obvious example is the Tevinter Imperium where any non-magister is crushed underheel, mage or no, while the magisters can almost literally get away with anything they want. What's the Tevinter Mage's excuse for using Blood Magic? They aren't oppressed, they still consort with demons and use it.

A crazy mage can raze an entire district of a city, a crazy non-mage can maybe kill a few people at most. Do you think guards would stand a chance against Quentin and Decimus? Mages aren't normal, they don't deserve the same rights as a normal person.

Now let's add back the risk of possession and... well, yeah. You've got the public that fear the mages, you've got the templar that watch them and you've got the mages that want to be free but might turn into demons whenever. Gives mage their freedom, public will attack the mages and the templar will either be forced to intervene before the mages oppress the public and become a new Tevinter Imperium or they get forced into submission and a new Circle is formed.

Using the term "ethical" to this choice is dismissing everything about the situation, the choice isn't something simple to have such labels and it isn't supposed to be. You can't dismiss the templar as the evil group or the mages as the evil group, I just value the security and freedom of the majority (the public) over the freedom and well being of the minority (rebel mages).

Does this mean people who side with mages are illogical or unethical? No, they just have far different priorities. I just won't let them insult the templar choice as if I'm siding with the devil.

Well another thing you aren't taking into consideration is that a lot of the Chantry and Templars are acting solely because their religious scripture tells them to, or at the very least they severely misenterpret it. One thing to keep in mind about scripture, even our world's bible, is that it is written/printed and distributed by mortals, not by God Himself.

Also devil might be a bit much. But the Templars, Chantry, and even the Circle are in a major need of reform.

[Tzarene]

To AlexXIV
I agree with you that Meredith issued a Right of Annullment that was not in essence true of what it actually means. I agree with you that she clearly profited from the public shock as well. I also agree that Genocide of the Kirkwall Circle is her goal (same as Anders but for different reasons).
What I do not agree is that the so-called genocide does not occur if you side with the templars. This is a point of contention that I have with the mage supporters. I sympathized with mages all throughout the game, I didn't stand with Meredith at the start of Act 3, instead electing to be neutral and observe first (clearly I knew Orsino was in the wrong and figured there'd be a quest to deal with it at some point so didn't side with him). But in the words of Hawke, order must be maintained which is why the templar choice is in your own words the pragmatic one. As a side note, I disagree on the heroic aspect of the mage choice; if by "heroic" you mean being a rebel (as Isabella would put it), sure then yea it's "heroic".
Orsino offering to give up would've done nothing to help himself or any of the other mages that were blood mage. Evidence will be found in the search and the ones beyond salvation executed or made tranquil. Obviously I disagree with Meredith when she declined flat-out. I sided with the templars because their job was needed but sadly I didn't have an option to intervene to arrest Orsino in that scenario. I suppose the following scene (vid linked) was designed to make up for that.

To The Grey Nayr
On the basis of Act 3, I completely agree. Both Orsino and Meredith were completely bonkers. What I'm arguing is mainly the misconceptions that mage-supporters have of us Templar-supporters. The misconception of genocide happening (and apparently you partaking in it) and the one in which siding with templars = siding with Meredith.

To Dave of Canada
"Does this mean people who side with mages are illogical or
unethical? No, they just have far different priorities. I just won't let
them insult the templar choice as if I'm siding with the devil." QFT imo. There's enough misconceptions about what values templar-supporters have.

[AlexXIV]

Tzarene wrote...

To AlexXIV
I agree with you that Meredith issued a Right of Annullment that was not in essence true of what it actually means. I agree with you that she clearly profited from the public shock as well. I also agree that Genocide of the Kirkwall Circle is her goal (same as Anders but for different reasons).
What I do not agree is that the so-called genocide does not occur if you side with the templars. This is a point of contention that I have with the mage supporters. I sympathized with mages all throughout the game, I didn't stand with Meredith at the start of Act 3, instead electing to be neutral and observe first (clearly I knew Orsino was in the wrong and figured there'd be a quest to deal with it at some point so didn't side with him). But in the words of Hawke, order must be maintained which is why the templar choice is in your own words the pragmatic one. As a side note, I disagree on the heroic aspect of the mage choice; if by "heroic" you mean being a rebel (as Isabella would put it), sure then yea it's "heroic".
Orsino offering to give up would've done nothing to help himself or any of the other mages that were blood mage. Evidence will be found in the search and the ones beyond salvation executed or made tranquil. Obviously I disagree with Meredith when she declined flat-out. I sided with the templars because their job was needed but sadly I didn't have an option to intervene to arrest Orsino in that scenario. I suppose the following scene (vid linked) was designed to make up for that.

To The Grey Nayr
On the basis of Act 3, I completely agree. Both Orsino and Meredith were completely bonkers. What I'm arguing is mainly the misconceptions that mage-supporters have of us Templar-supporters. The misconception of genocide happening (and apparently you partaking in it) and the one in which siding with templars = siding with Meredith.

To Dave of Canada
"Does this mean people who side with mages are illogical or
unethical? No, they just have far different priorities. I just won't let
them insult the templar choice as if I'm siding with the devil." QFT imo. There's enough misconceptions about what values templar-supporters have.

Well I also don't think the mages should govern themselves or that if the mages were in power things would be better. But this situation in the game required my Hawke to side with the mages. Because it should have been the templars who refuse Meredith. Cullen did it after the Circle was cleansed. Meredith wanted to kill Hawke and suddenly Cullen disobeys. Why? Hawke sided against them. Why not kill Hawke as well? Especially if Hawke is a mage or even blood mage? Cullen could have said it before the fight but he didn't. He could have put things right. But he didn't. I don't understand why he first sides with Meredith and kills all the innocent mages and then protects Hawke, who is everything but innocent.

In a way my Hawke siding with the mages she is doing the templar's job. Because the templar's job is not only to protect the normal people from the mages, but also to protect the mages from the normal people.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 21 mars 2011 - 10:45 .

[Defied]

Both groups were as bad as each other.

Orsino kept argueing not to put all mages in the same group after Anders blew up the chantry, saying that not all mages should be condemed because of the action of one mage. Yet he himself puts all Templars in the same group because of the actions of Meredith, even though we know Cullen has a very different view.

The groups as a whole are both terrible. There are only a few people on both sides who can actually see some semblence of reason.

In fact, at the end of my first playthrough (i let anders live and sided with the mages and bethany had died in the deep roads.) i was disgusted to learn that Orsino not only used blood magic, but had full knowledge of that other guy who kills your mother and allowed such things to get so out of hand, because he was 'intrigued' how it would turn out.

In one hand, you have Meredith, who starts disliking mages quite alot. Who had some sense in her duty by denieing the 'Tranquil Solution'. But got her hands on the idol which made her far more paranoid and bat **** crazy.

In the other you have Orsino, who is allowing others to mess around with necromancy and blood magic and clearly knows enough about blood magic to become a Harvester.

When the leaders of the two groups are like this, is it any wonder why they all seem so messed up?

[thedistortedchild]

Kriselia wrote...
By the end of the whole thing I just wanted to pack up and go back to Ferelden where not everyone was crazy.

This, a thousand time this.<_<

[AlexXIV]

thedistortedchild wrote...

Kriselia wrote...
By the end of the whole thing I just wanted to pack up and go back to Ferelden where not everyone was crazy.

This, a thousand time this.<_<

Maybe the idea behind DA2 was to make us appreciate DA:O more.

[Lulia]

I thought siding with the mage was a no brainer because it was the obvious lesser of the evils.

The templars wanted to wipe out a whole bunch of people just for what they are and not what they've done.

The mages wanted to get rid of Meredith.

Get rid of everyone vs get rid of one person = no brainer.

[DKJaigen]

Ngoctu wrote...

the ideology of templar is not to kill mage it's to protect mage form themselves and protect the people of the city

A lot of tyrants in the past have used similar lines before. suffice to say the Templar's  instigated needless slaughter for nothing. the templars are in the fault here.

[Ngoctu]

it doesnt suffice... it's not enough one mage to get bloodmage to condemn them all but it's enough one templar to torture one mage to condemn all templar

how can u not see you are using 2 meter and 2 different measure to judge the same thing

go back to the ideology and asnwer that not trying to change sobject

bloodmage/demon phylosophy is to use/kill people for their own power
templar phylosophy is to protect mage from losing it and protect people

if then some templar are acting up it is like saying police force  is bad because few are corrupted then lets kill all the cops

Obviously Police limit my freedom i cannot steal i cannot enter other people propriety they limit me templar limit mage freedom because freedom is not an absolute is a relationship your freedom has to balance with my freedom

Mage freedom has to balance with people freedom i agree so far the balance is not perfect but u can't honestly side totally only with the mage they are not the victim here the victim is the innocent people dead BECAUSE mage and templar hate eacohther

the victim is hawke mother as the other womans the victim is the elf wife... so how can you say mage good templar bad....

they are both wrong but if i have to choose i chose the one that doesnt hurt innocent and so far i didnt see any templar going around killing other people mothers even the most crazy one

Modifié par Ngoctu, 21 mars 2011 - 11:07 .

[AlexXIV]

Shavon wrote...

I'm a sucker for the underdog. . . and absilutely despised the way mages were treated in Origins. The only way they could ever get respect was to become a Grey Warden, or by sheer luck serve in a position of power at the King's court, become First Enchanter or be a Tevinter (as loong as they were not a slave).

Liberating the mages is the best way to go, imo. It's inevitable. Injustives won't remain that way for long, and most liberations are quite messy. That's just the way things are.

Liberated mages will lead to a new Tevinter Empire. Then the circle starts from new. That's not much of an improvement.

[thedistortedchild]

 Alright I guess this is 'srs biznez' so here is my serious post.

BOTH sides are at fault The templars were pushing down to hard on the mages who were using blood magic to escape from the templars who were pushing down harder on the mages who resorted to more blood magic etc.
It was a powder keg and niether side would listen to reason.

IMHO - Mages are too dangerous to let be completely, however they shouldn't be kept prisoner their whole lives either. If a mage can pass the harrowing, (cough Kobayashi Maru cough) then they can handle themselves and can leave the tower, with check ups from templars say once a year or so. If they can't then they stay in the tower.
If they want to study bloodmagic then they can, but they must stay in the tower. 

What I'm saying is that there was a middle ground in there somewhere but both sides were too radicalized to see it. (Social commentary much?)

[WhiteKnyght]

Ngoctu wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

You don't need to be a mage to be a deranged killer. Look at the serial killers in our world. Adolf Hitler, Zodiac, Son of Sam, BTK, Jack the Ripper, the DC Snipers. Did they have magic?

Just because the person who killed Leandra was a mage doesn't mean I'm gonna be ignorant enough to focus on that one part of him.

So just because A **** killed Hebrews we dont have to think **** are bad? is the Ideology that is bad
and a blood mage ideology when possesed by a demon is to kill/use people as he please

****'s are bad. The ****s were an organization of white supremacists. My point is that thinking all mages are bad because of a few would be the same as thinking all white/caucasian people are the same as the ****s. Which is obviously not true.

You're convicting all mages of crimes certain people are committing. Having magic doesn't make them guilty of another free willed person's actions.

Conversely, not all Templars are guilty of the crimes of other Templars, but the recruitment of Templars is based on their similar views of mages, not an accident of birth. Which means the Templars should be reformed.

- The right of annulment should be taken from them. Meredith didn't even have the authority to invoke it anyway. Origins proved that Knight-Commanders don't have that.

- The Rite of Tranquility should not be forced on mages. Murdering a person's soul in the Fade and turning them into a lifeless husk because they take a small step out of line is pure evil. Not to mention its against Chantry law to Tranquilize harrowed mages and Meredith and Alrik did it several times.

- Mages should not be forced into the circle against their will as children. If they elect not to go the Circle could send a mage to them and teach them at home.

- Mages should be allowed time to go out and have some fun. Like Emile, he just wanted to get drunk and get laid. And once he did he happily returned to the Circle.

- After a mage is Harrrowed, that should be taken as proof that they can be trusted as they entered the fade and were able to resist the temptation of demons. And be allowed to leave if they wish to. The Harrowing could be considered a Final Exam/Graduation.

- Templar powers could be taught to every guard/soldier so that mage criminals wont be as much of a danger to the general population.

[DrFumb1ezX]

Shavon wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Shavon wrote...

I'm a sucker for the underdog. . . and absilutely despised the way mages were treated in Origins. The only way they could ever get respect was to become a Grey Warden, or by sheer luck serve in a position of power at the King's court, become First Enchanter or be a Tevinter (as loong as they were not a slave).

Liberating the mages is the best way to go, imo. It's inevitable. Injustives won't remain that way for long, and most liberations are quite messy. That's just the way things are.

Liberated mages will lead to a new Tevinter Empire. Then the circle starts from new. That's not much of an improvement.

Assuming that human behavior is predicable.  Which is isn't.

I'm still voting for Ritual dismemberments. Thedas must burn!

Besides, what Morrigan said at the end of Witch Hunt and what Flemeth has repeatedly stated is that people fear change, but sometimes change is what they need most. 

Hey, how funny would it be if the Maker came down and said,
"And to think, I gave up on the Fade for you retards! Goddammit!" 

[AlexXIV]

Shavon wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Shavon wrote...

I'm a sucker for the underdog. . . and absilutely despised the way mages were treated in Origins. The only way they could ever get respect was to become a Grey Warden, or by sheer luck serve in a position of power at the King's court, become First Enchanter or be a Tevinter (as loong as they were not a slave).

Liberating the mages is the best way to go, imo. It's inevitable. Injustives won't remain that way for long, and most liberations are quite messy. That's just the way things are.

Liberated mages will lead to a new Tevinter Empire. Then the circle starts from new. That's not much of an improvement.

Assuming that human behavior is predicable.  Which is isn't.

Obviously in every society I know, the people on top struggle for power. And the most powerful mages will always be bloodmages.

[Caladors]

GreyLord wrote...

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

So basically siding with mages is better because everything goes worse ?

Godwin for the win?

No...you side with the Mages because something just seems wrong with siding with ****'s...well at least a group that does some things remarkably similar to what the ****'s did.

I don't even understand how BW considers this a Grey/Grey issue.  Hmmm. do I side with the maniacs who want their freedom, or the ****'s who will kill anyone who is not "PURE" in their standards.  Seems pretty much evil vs. good or for those who don't really consider the mages good...evil vs. crazy.

Edit:  Seems like the Nationalist Socialist Party in Germany during the 30's and 40's is a bad word...

 
Explain what the Joker has to do with the National Socialist Party.
Beside some obscure batman comic where they may travel across the pacific?
It's not about good verses evil.
See there are many reasons for the chantry and how they set this up it is how things are done that makes it all go wrong.

Imagine in real life there was a persecuted party whom could turn city blocks to ash when attacked and people attacked them all the time because of ignorance, desire for wealth and a cavalcade of other reasons.
The government says.
We are going to set up special areas for them with a dedicated task force for there protection.
Wile you may argue for freedom and such it's not a final resort kind of measure.
And as far medieval thinking is going, it's down right enlightened.

The game is more about fear and desperation.
It's about on one side you have people who are afraid of what this small percentage of the population can do if left unchecked.
They have powers not fathomable by the common man.
The ability to allow demons to fight for you, summon the dead to fight and call down the forces of nature against you in it's most terrible wrath.
On the other side.
You have people who are desperate to be free.
They want even the most remote chances at life.
A single moment with a woman or a man.
To be able to have a family.
To not be trapped inside a body that truly is not you one that is the embodiment of I must scream but I have no mouth.
They are you but not you perverted in the worst way, you without your emotion.

I would say there is reasons to side with either.

[Foolsfolly]

OP's argument is flawed because he fails to factor in that the mages in the Kirkwall Circle were corrupt blood mages from the First Enchanter on down.

The Templars were right in this case, but the mages deserve more freedom than the Circles currently get.

[WhiteKnyght]

Foolsfolly wrote...

OP's argument is flawed because he fails to factor in that the mages in the Kirkwall Circle were corrupt blood mages from the First Enchanter on down.

The Templars were right in this case, but the mages deserve more freedom than the Circles currently get.

Not every mage in Kirkwall's Circle was a blood mage. For argument's sake, most of the mages you see/fight in the game are desperate Apostates, and escapees from Starkhaven's Circle.

Also the only thing really to be feared of blood magic is Mind Domination. Which can be countered with the Litany of Adralla. One use and you're immune for life. It would be more humane to duplicate the Litany and cast it on the Templars, Mages, and the general population.

[Caladors]

Wile the fish rots from the head down I am not so sure here.
Wile there was much blood magic studied for the most part it seemed to be a last resort.

[Dean_the_Young]

Dave of Canada wrote...

And I'm not ignoring that, however freeing the mages will make them just as likely as to commit those acts as anybody else, the only difference is that they'd be a bigger threat because of it.

Let's hypothetically assume there's no risk of possession.

What if Rendon Howe was a mage? He could've used blood magic to manipulate the Couslands, he could've destroyed their castle using magic and summoned demons to assist him. What if Sister Petrice used blood magic to control a group of Qunari to kill some citizens to cause the war?

Mages aren't immune to sin as everybody else, the only difference is they have super powers that put them in a position where they could greatly influence things a lot more than a non-mage. Obvious example is the Tevinter Imperium where any non-magister is crushed underheel, mage or no, while the magisters can almost literally get away with anything they want. What's the Tevinter Mage's excuse for using Blood Magic? They aren't oppressed, they still consort with demons and use it.

A crazy mage can raze an entire district of a city, a crazy non-mage can maybe kill a few people at most. Do you think guards would stand a chance against Quentin and Decimus? Mages aren't normal, they don't deserve the same rights as a normal person.

Now let's add back the risk of possession and... well, yeah. You've got the public that fear the mages, you've got the templar that watch them and you've got the mages that want to be free but might turn into demons whenever. Gives mage their freedom, public will attack the mages and the templar will either be forced to intervene before the mages oppress the public and become a new Tevinter Imperium or they get forced into submission and a new Circle is formed.

Using the term "ethical" to this choice is dismissing everything about the situation, the choice isn't something simple to have such labels and it isn't supposed to be. You can't dismiss the templar as the evil group or the mages as the evil group, I just value the security and freedom of the majority (the public) over the freedom and well being of the minority (rebel mages).

Does this mean people who side with mages are illogical or unethical? No, they just have far different priorities. I just won't let them insult the templar choice as if I'm siding with the devil.

To expound upon what Dave said:

One of the underlying premise of universal human rights is that humans are roughly universal. While all people are not quite equal in capability, the differences between races and groups is relatively minor, and far more situational and cultural than inherent. As individuals, no one is especially better, or more dangerous, than anyone else. In so much that the gap is there, the gap is not extreme, and can be closed by a variety of realistic and basic factors. There is no superior race: there are no people who are inherently more capable than the rest.

Such an underlying premise is utterly invalid once magic is involved. A half-dozen skilled, trained, experienced mages are a considerable asset to a small army of mundane peasants, while every mage has inherent access to the necessities for extremely potent blood magic. Throw in the danger of abominations, which can turn the most benign, non-malevlent, even untrained persons into insane creatures who can easily spur upwards towards tripple digit fatalities if they come as a surprise, abominations who can be a result of any sort of stress whether 'oppressed' or not, and the people of Thedas are not all equal. Some are far, far more powerful, and dangerous, than the rest.


Even in our 'enlightened' progressive views, equal rights depend on largely equal capabilities (and dangers): people who pose exceptional threats, deliberate or not, already stand to be quarantined, detained, or otherwise kept from the general public. And that's in a world without random insanity upon stress: in a world like Thedas, the concept of universal human rights as we understand them has not basis, and would never come to resist.

[Foolsfolly]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

OP's argument is flawed because he fails to factor in that the mages in the Kirkwall Circle were corrupt blood mages from the First Enchanter on down.

The Templars were right in this case, but the mages deserve more freedom than the Circles currently get.

Not every mage in Kirkwall's Circle was a blood mage. For argument's sake, most of the mages you see/fight in the game are desperate Apostates, and escapees from Starkhaven's Circle.

Also the only thing really to be feared of blood magic is Mind Domination. Which can be countered with the Litany of Adralla. One use and you're immune for life. It would be more humane to duplicate the Litany and cast it on the Templars, Mages, and the general population.

So one bad day is all that's keeping a good mage from going abomination?

Isn't that a bigger argument for Meredith? People get stressed all the time, they don't blow up a city block when they're stressed out. A mage can.

Freedom for mages is a great idea but here's a whole group of people that are so over powered that the normal man has nothing he can do to stop them. The best they can do is the Templar, dedicated well trained lyrium addicts.

The Mages are not like any oppressed group from our world. A racial minority in our world cannot control our thoughts, blow up a building with his mind, or turn into an Abomination and do.....whatever it was that made those chunks of flesh grow around the Ferelden Circle.

Complete freedom for Mages means a great threat to the majority of normal people in Thedas. Tevinter, with its slaves and evil selfish magisters who sacrifce anyone for personal power proves that there needs to be something to keep the Mages in balance.

Checks and balances are what is needed. The current situation is unsustainable because the Templar impose too much will and imprison the very powerful people who can easily cause untold destruction and death.

[Unichrone]

This thread is pretty hilarious. Siding with the templars is the most sane, obvious choice.

[Edrick1976]

I truly wanted to side with the mages but every time I would do something to help them it would bite me in the ass, or they would try to kill me, or kidnap my sister, or turn into a demon and start to kill people, or the mage you help escaped early on in the game went crazy and blamed me for something witch I still don’t know or understand why and killed probably the most honorable templar I have ever meet in the game, or kill the grand cleric who was a really nice lady and was the ONLY thing keeping Meredith from killing everyone and going insane and buy doing so justified everything Meredith did…
Kind hard to side with someone when they keep on trying to kill me...

Modifié par Edington, 22 mars 2011 - 12:45 .