61 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

Lianaar wrote...

It might prove it either way, but it was a story hidden in the details, you can discover by devoting times to pay attention to said details. Wether you accept this presentation or not is one thing, however it was not a tossed together, last minute plot

Again it just seems as an excuse to me. It may be a well integrated excuse, but an excuse nonetheless.
Anyway my point is that this sort of veil thinning enviroments may be all over the place for all we know and has gone seemingly uncared about for hundreds of years.

One more thing: everything we know comes from Varrik, who confesses being a compulsive liar who is repulsed by the idea of saying the truth and nothing but the truth. When the base paradigma is unstable, everything is possible.

Do not get me started on that. We'll be here all month. The men will grow beards during my unstoppable, ceaseless, boring and angry rant.

[Icy Magebane]

The Angry One wrote...

Yeah you see that just seems like it's all a big last minute excuse to explain why the whole game is filled with crazy, crazy mages.

And if something as simple as ENVIROMENT can make mages crazy it just proves the Chantry's point again.
It's just saying that mages are disasters on legs waiting to happen, and all magic artifacts = EVIL.

I agree with this 100%.  It's hard to sympathize with mages at all in light of their presentation in this game...  There may have been some Templars who aboused their authority, but the threat of magic is real.  This game implies that few, if any, have the ability to resist possession... it's very one-sided.

[Bann Duncan]

The Angry One wrote...

Lianaar wrote...

It might prove it either way, but it was a story hidden in the details, you can discover by devoting times to pay attention to said details. Wether you accept this presentation or not is one thing, however it was not a tossed together, last minute plot

Again it just seems as an excuse to me. It may be a well integrated excuse, but an excuse nonetheless.
Anyway my point is that this sort of veil thinning enviroments may be all over the place for all we know and has gone seemingly uncared about for hundreds of years.

One more thing: everything we know comes from Varrik, who confesses being a compulsive liar who is repulsed by the idea of saying the truth and nothing but the truth. When the base paradigma is unstable, everything is possible.

Do not get me started on that. We'll be here all month. The men will grow beards during my unstoppable, ceaseless, boring and angry rant.

What about the already-beardies?

[The Angry One]

Bann Duncan wrote...

What about the already-beardies?

You'll grow beards so long, you'll make those Tibetan gurus shriek with envy.

[Emperor Iaius I]

A shame really. But aside from that, their dialog is always EVIL.
"Muahaha you shall call me master! I've just returned from blood sacrificing puppies punching old people in the street!"

Oh, but Danarius was perfectly courteous. I handed Fenris over to him, and he complimented me and said he'd expect such civilized behavior from a mage. Then I got a very gracious letter from him inviting me to visit the Imperium at any time and call on him, and he'd be happy to give me a tour of Minrathous.

How could you hate such a nice man? He doesn't eat puppies!

[Lianaar]

The Angry One wrote...

Anyway my point is that this sort of veil thinning enviroments may be all over the place for all we know and has gone seemingly uncared about for hundreds of years.

First in response to the second part: actually the references say, that Kirkwall mages have always been treated differently then circles in anywhere else. If your character takes these sources for truth, then the differences are here for thousands of years already. And that does has its marks on the place.

In response of the first part: it might be all over the place. This is exactly what I enjoy in the game (and what I loved in DA:O too). You can find one stand, justify it. Then you can find the opposite stand, and justify it with the provided information equally well. This is how you can make unique characters that are still well rounded. Let's say, someone says: that Band of Three was just idiots, what they wrote are ramblings. It was Flemeth's arrival, that caused this mess.

Or you can go: Meredith is insane and tortured people either into submission or into rebellion, all her fault and for that she must pay.

Equally justified is to claim: magic itself is very dangerous and because of that all mages should be made tranquil, as that is the only solution.

Same way valid is: The Qun has a solution: use them as the tool they are meant to be, while takinga way the threat they pose.

And there are other valid beliefs. Without this there would be a single valid character type to play. This is the very base of any good story telling.

A very similar type of argument came up in regards of gods, old gods, maker, creators, forgottens etc in DA:O conversations. There are no truths, just sides you can take and work out your argumentation for.

[The Angry One]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

A shame really. But aside from that, their dialog is always EVIL.

"Muahaha you shall call me master! I've just returned from blood sacrificing puppies punching old people in the street!"

Oh,
but Danarius was perfectly courteous. I handed Fenris over to him, and
he complimented me and said he'd expect such civilized behavior from a
mage. Then I got a very gracious letter from him inviting me to visit
the Imperium at any time and call on him, and he'd be happy to give me a
tour of Minrathous.



How could you hate such a nice man? He doesn't eat puppies!

Hence British villian! All very civilised and proper. Gracious host, fabulous manners. Then you get on his bad side and it's puppy murder time!

Lianaar wrote...

First
in response to the second part: actually the references say, that
Kirkwall mages have always been treated differently then circles in
anywhere else. If your character takes these sources for truth, then the
differences are here for thousands of years already. And that does has
its marks on the place.

Yes but nobody ever figures out exactly why. Nobody ever decides to.. I don't know, move the Circle somewhere else.

In
response of the first part: it might be all over the place. This is
exactly what I enjoy in the game (and what I loved in DA:O too). You can
find one stand, justify it. Then you can find the opposite stand, and
justify it with the provided information equally well. This is how you
can make unique characters that are still well rounded. Let's say,
someone says: that Band of Three was just idiots, what they wrote are
ramblings. It was Flemeth's arrival, that caused this mess.

Or
you can go: Meredith is insane and tortured people either into
submission or into rebellion, all her fault and for that she must pay.

Equally
justified is to claim: magic itself is very dangerous and because of
that all mages should be made tranquil, as that is the only solution.

Same way valid is: The Qun has a solution: use them as the tool they are meant to be, while takinga way the threat they pose.

And
there are other valid beliefs. Without this there would be a single
valid character type to play. This is the very base of any good story
telling.

A very similar type of argument came up in regards of
gods, old gods, maker, creators, forgottens etc in DA:O conversations.
There are no truths, just sides you can take and work out your
argumentation for.

Perhaps but whatever cause you want to blame it's still irritating that basically every free mage you encounter is a blood mage or worse. Alain doesn't really count as he was pulled along for the ride and wants to go back to the Circle. Neither does that Orlesian mage as he seems somewhat mentally deficient, perhaps from living a sheltered life.

[Lianaar]

No, nobody ever figures out. But what proof do you expect? Paradigmas can not be proved really. They are the very base of your belief. If an apple falls down from the tree, why do you think it is? Your answer is the paradigma you have. Because you can not know. What you believe will decide what arguments you use.

Do you believe in the maker? Then every sign is a proof for the maker (just listen to Sebastian's arguments)

Do you beleive in the Creators? Then the signs will prove you right.

Do you believe the mages are a threat by existing? There'll be signs to support that.
Do you believe mages are not a threat by existing, only become a threat when others push them? There'll be signs to support that.
You do not need magic to blow up the Chantry (considering the materials used, it was more alchemy, then magic)
Could it have been done by a none mage? Totally.
Where you stand will decide what you see from the world. In Dragon Age (both of them) you'll find proof for many sides, and many things are phrased in a way, that makes you able to use it for justifying different versions of "truth".

I do like to role play. When I role play I put myself in the shoes of my character and I'll believe in a certain view. I'll seek out signs that contradict my character's view in order to fight those signs.

First I played with a rouge, pro mage. I was annoyed how many mages turn either to blood magic or into abominations. It was annoying how human Cullan is, and frustrating that Orsino didn't trust me enough. The Keeper was the worst.

My second play through I was a pro-circle mage. I noticed that half the mages that attack me are not blood mages (slaver mage, coterie alchemist, apostate mage), recalled that Bethany was not a blood mage, realised that Anders's "task" doesn't need a mage, notice how even templars oppose Meredith etc.

The same story from a different angle. I hope to find many alternate "truths" in my following playthroughs, but I do not think the presentation was one-sided.

[Lianaar]

PurebredCorn wrote...

I think there are a lot of people confusing blood magic with abominations. *Any* mage can become an abomination whether they use blood magic or not. I think the story and lore support everything that occurs in Kirkwall, how easily the mages can become possessed, and why some of them resort to blood magic... heck, the only decent mage in the game was Bethany and they take her away from you for most of the game. Kirkwall is a pretty crappy place filled with a lot of crappy people whether they're a mage, a templar, or average joe.

Well, classic table top RP usually starts with an environment, which is controversial and filled with conflict, and you just toss in a character and see what (s)he does.

There are a lots of conflicts in this place:
- qunari-chantry
- nobles - templars
- guard - templars
- guard - circle
- circle - templars
- apostates/abominations - circle
- templars - Meredith
- Fereldans - Kirkwall citizens
- elves- humans- dwarves
- Coterie - Carta - Merchant Guild and other guilds
- slavers - anti-slavers
- commoners - nobles
- poor - rich
One of the biggest problem with you at first is not that you are a mage or pro mage or anti mage, but that you are a poor refugy from Fereldan that requests the town to help. It brings up a social and economical tension. More people here that the town can feed and employ. The military threat of the refugies topped with the possible Qunary invasion. Kirkwall is a keg of gatlaak.

Evil or no, everyone has its own reasons, the Viscont, Saemus, Isabel, the Arishok, the Chantry, even Petrice. Meredith and the mages, Cullan. Within their own world and paradigmas, they are all correct, round, valid, logical. They gave the only answer they could give with their preset worlds.

[The Angry One]

The problem is that while the plot does a good job of establishing various tensions and valid reasons, it all gets mashed together into plot porridge where in the end, MAGIC/DEMONS/MAGIC ARTIFACTS ARE EVIL!

Orsino's depth is ruined when he turns into Superbomination, the Arishok just says "oh to hell with it. QUNARI SMASH!", Meredith gets turned by Soul Edge Frostmourne that lyrium blade.
So yes it's not only mages that are depicted a bit badly, but mages suffer the most.

[Lianaar]

What I am saying is: everything has a reason, and from where you stand, you can decide if that reason is valid or no, or if there is another eason.
Nothing however happened without a reason, just so. People (even fantasy created ones) don't always make the smartes, best choices. But they are consistent with themselves.

I can make a list of good in mages, just like I can make a list of bad in mages. Both based on this game. So I disagree with the statement that mages are shown as evil. They are shown as varried and controversial, exposed to power that makes people react (fear, support, envy, hate, adoration...) Whatever they are, they are not unified, one sided, simple, alogical, chanceless and uninspired. Were they so, this whole thread would not exist as there was nothing to speak of.

[Sanguinerin]

I would have liked a few more examples of mages like Irving and Wynne, both of which I had much respect for. I really would have liked a better sense of the mages in the final battle (while siding with the mages, as I feel we only got that by siding with the templars). I have to say that I hold Emile de Launcet in the highest regard as a mage in the game. I'm just now playing a non-mage character and getting to see Bethany, who I like. Alain is a fairly decent person as well.

These mages seem to blend into the background more so than those that resort to darker means. I would have liked to see a paragon of a mage (that has a name and some significance, rather than merely those nameless mages cut down when the templars begin their assault on the Gallows).

I would say that I suppose I'm not terribly disappointed, but I would have liked to see a mage that was against blood magic and such that was more of a prominent character. Even if they died, I would like to know that they died without giving in to darker methods. Bethany could end up being this mage, but as I love to play mages, the only example I found that stood out was my own character.

Edit: Although, I suppose giving that example just might turn more sympathizers toward the mage side. It might have pushed more at black and white than gray. Still, it would have been nice. I felt a strong sense of reason with Cullen throughout the game and at the end, but there wasn't really a mage that I strongly felt the same way about.

Modifié par HallowedWarden, 22 mars 2011 - 07:01 .

[WidowMaker9394]

I found it weird how every mage besides three or four were evil blood mage-abominations. And almost every templar, and even Meredith to some degree, were portrayed as reasonable albeit a bit zealous persons.

It makes it hard to push for freedom for mages when the game goes out of its way to show you how evil and blood-thirsty eight out of ten mages are.

[Medhia Nox]

As a fan of Warhammer Fantasy and 40K - I believe the mages of Thedas are a safer knockoff. That being said - yes, I do like the fact that they're all potentially dangerous abominations who are in no way equal to a normal man.

They have power - but they're preyed upon by forces outside of their control.

They have power - but they're (rightfully) distrusted by other people.

As a player of a mage, I play them as uncompromising anti-Blood Magic Circle Aeguatarians. Yes, I want reform for the Circles - but no, I don't believe that mages should be allowed to run around without regulation.

[Urazz]

I didn't truthfully find it wierd that most of the mages we ran into ended up using blood magic or became Abominations.  Remember the Circle in Kirkwall is basically like a prison so all the good mages that don't use blood magic or are vulnerable enough to turn are in the tower and don't get out much.

Bethany is a good example of this if she joins the Circle in my opinion.  We rarely see her in game after Act 1 other than in abnormal circumstances.

So basically the mages that we are exposed to are just apostates who tend to be desperate, possibly angry, and/or lack training.  If anything, Dragon Age 2 cemented my opinion that the Circle needs to be like a school than as a prison.

[LilyDelyrium]

Medhia Nox wrote...

As a fan of Warhammer Fantasy and 40K - I believe the mages of Thedas are a safer knockoff. That being said - yes, I do like the fact that they're all potentially dangerous abominations who are in no way equal to a normal man.

They have power - but they're preyed upon by forces outside of their control.

They have power - but they're (rightfully) distrusted by other people.

As a player of a mage, I play them as uncompromising anti-Blood Magic Circle Aeguatarians. Yes, I want reform for the Circles - but no, I don't believe that mages should be allowed to run around without regulation.

I couldn't agree more.

[Evolution33]

I hope there is a Band of Three DLC with some sort of Ghostbuster 2 style river running under the city of Kirkwall that makes all the mages more inclined to turn evil than in other parts of the world.

[Curlain]

Evolution33 wrote...

I hope there is a Band of Three DLC with some sort of Ghostbuster 2 style river running under the city of Kirkwall that makes all the mages more inclined to turn evil than in other parts of the world.

I would love for there to be a DA version of the Ghostbusters running around, that would be awesome 

[bluecuban]

Why do most people forget about Feynriel? To my knowledge, no matter what story you take with him, he never becomes a Blood Mage, never resorts to it, and can possibly become free.

Personally, I like to think the story of the game is more about the good that can still come from so much insanity. Yeah there are a lot of over-the-top crazy mages, but still the few bright seeds in there somewhere. Heck, even look at Cullen, who hated mages at the end of DA:O and how he grew.

[LobselVith8]

X2-Elijah wrote...

Granted.. It's just that after a full playthrough, I'm left with the impression that in DA2, mage = evil abomination, period. And it's that one-sided portrayal, which goes pretty much against my character, DA:O knowledge (and concept of mages in general, but that is beside the point), that made me ask this.. I certainly don't recall other dragon age franchise titles drawing the equality sign between a mage and and demon/abomination, but in DA2, it's very, very heavily impressed.

We do come across a great deal of blood mages and abominations, but I don't think Knight-Commander Meredith demanding the death of every man, woman, and child in Kirkwall with magical ability for the actions of someone who has no ties to the Kirkwall Circle (and is standing right in front of her, no less) makes the templars any better when they're willing to commit genocide of all Circle mages for the actions of one apostate.

[TheAwesomologist]

I don't mind how Mages are portrayed in DA 2. There are plenty of examples of "good"mages, ie ones that don't turn into abominations. Hawke Mage, Bethany, and Merrill don't turn into monsters. There's the half-elf kid you rescue whom, as far as we know, doesn't turn batshiat crazy, as well as Dane (or Dan or whatever, he uses blood magic but isn't an abomination.

I'm sure there are folks who like the Templar side of the story but really, nearly every evil/crazy blood mage you come across is made so because of Meredith and her oppressive stance on mages. If you corner someone they will resort to any means necessary to survive. I'm glad Cullen and Carver had a change of heart and did what was right, but they were still always fighting for the wrong side to begin with.

[The Angry One]

PurebredCorn wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

The problem is that while the plot does a good job of establishing various tensions and valid reasons, it all gets mashed together into plot porridge where in the end, MAGIC/DEMONS/MAGIC ARTIFACTS ARE EVIL!

Orsino's depth is ruined when he turns into Superbomination, the Arishok just says "oh to hell with it. QUNARI SMASH!", Meredith gets turned by Soul Edge Frostmourne that lyrium blade.
So yes it's not only mages that are depicted a bit badly, but mages suffer the most.

I get your point about Orsino, but the Arishok had plenty of very good reasons to want to tear Kirkwall down... and I was kind of surprised he waited as long as he did. Did you not meet Sister/Mother Patrice? I mean c'mon.

While the Arishok did have reasons, what I meant to say is that since it all gets mashed together and basically EVERY major character goes nuclear, they serve to undermine each other.
In that the Arishok is reduced into one in the line of antagonists that all queue up to get defeated by Hawke.

[The Angry One]

TheAwesomologist wrote...

I don't mind how Mages are portrayed in DA 2. There are plenty of examples of "good"mages, ie ones that don't turn into abominations. Hawke Mage, Bethany, and Merrill don't turn into monsters. There's the half-elf kid you rescue whom, as far as we know, doesn't turn batshiat crazy, as well as Dane (or Dan or whatever, he uses blood magic but isn't an abomination.

Feynriel is at risk of becoming an abomination or insane if you don't rescue him, and even then he runs off to Tevinter and apprentices to a Magister which doesn't exactly bode well.