4350 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

well when you talk to her she's not subtle sure. other than that though she could've kept her emotions bottled up.

I've kept mine bottled up for 5 years now. I'm starting to run out of bottles though...

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Honestly, did you really think she was trouble when you saved her? I'm assuming of course that you did save her.

I thought she was trouble when she obviously hated it every time Hawke came to the Gallows and blamed him for her incompetence. I highly doubt she managed to bottle up her feelings without anyone noticing, she was not subtle at all.

Not just that, but she was very quick to try to extort my mage-hawke when he wouldn't immediately agree to slaughter templars for fun and lulz....and as Decimus' lover, she had to be into his plots and killings up to her eyebrows.  I always believed she was a bloodmage and thus complicit.  I really, really wish I had the genuine option of killing her then and there.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

IanPolaris wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Honestly, did you really think she was trouble when you saved her? I'm assuming of course that you did save her.

I thought she was trouble when she obviously hated it every time Hawke came to the Gallows and blamed him for her incompetence. I highly doubt she managed to bottle up her feelings without anyone noticing, she was not subtle at all.

Not just that, but she was very quick to try to extort my mage-hawke when he wouldn't immediately agree to slaughter templars for fun and lulz....and as Decimus' lover, she had to be into his plots and killings up to her eyebrows.  I always believed she was a bloodmage and thus complicit.  I really, really wish I had the genuine option of killing her then and there.

-Polaris

Oh yea I remember. Anders was too approving of that too.

[Rifneno]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

my initials are JC so for a brief minute I thought you were talking about me.

Mine too, but I didn't think he was talking about me. You certainly don't have any self esteem issues.

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Your opinion is as valid as any other, Polaris, as far as people's freedom to hold whatever opinion they wish, and I haven't tried to claim otherwise. But as opinions go, it doesn't strike me as having a strong basis for support, and I find it ridiculous.  I'm no more going to shy away from stating as much any more than I do from attacking the opinion that Elthina was a poor, misunderstood soul who could use her status as a senile old crone to justify not doing her job.

*sigh*  We aren't going to agree so please don't open this up again.  Suffice it to say, I think you are being a bit too generous to the writers here.  DG has gone on the record saying that mages aren't innocent because they are mages.  He has gone on the record that the only reason we back mages is because we live in cushy westernized nations that can't appreciate real moral choice (and yes he's said these things!)  DG did openly lament that poeple picked mages by default in DAO and even grudgingly admitted that they went OTT with skewing how mages are presented in DA2.  Combine that with the deliberate hiding of the Enigma of Kirkwall entries (which shows the Kirkwall is NOT a typical case), the metamorphasis of Lelianna and other clues, and I think I am on fairly firm grounds with my opinions here.

I DO think that DG is goiing to go even more anti-mage in the next installment if given the chance.

-Polaris

If you bring it up in the forum, I'm going to challenge it.  Anything you write about in the forum is open game for other people to dispute.  You're just going to have to deal with that.  And I note that you aren't exactly one to shy away from stating and re-stating your position over and over again, even with the same people who've already heard your stance a few times.  Better not expect anything less from me, because it ain't gonna happen.

I've seen that DG quote about people only siding with mages because of our backgrounds, I think, and I do have to admit he has an extremely valid and fair point.  None of us can speak from the direct experience of living in close proximity to people who have the ability to start fires with only the power of their mind, and who attract demons more or less like magnets.  I also agree that a lot of people living in Western nations absolutely do live very comfortable lives without having to worry about grave matters of survival for the most part.  I don't know that I'd go so far as to say none of us are capable of appreciating real moral choice, but it is definitely a truism that most of us live very comfortably in comparison to the vast majority of human beings in the world.  The fact that we are able to have an ongoing discussion, for well over a hundred pages now, about a video game, and can armchair-philosophize about moral decisions that most of us will very likely never have to face in our daily lives speaks directly to this.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

well when you talk to her she's not subtle sure. other than that though she could've kept her emotions bottled up.

I've kept mine bottled up for 5 years now. I'm starting to run out of bottles though...

Might wanna watch that.  It's never fun when you suddenly drop a dozen bottles and they all shatter at once...

[IanPolaris]

Sifren,

Except that this very quote denigrate his opinion of the VERY AUDIENCE HE WANTS TO CONVINCE of their ability to make "real" moral choices. It's at minimum mindnumbingly arrogant. At worst it shows blatent disregard for the valid criticism of the actual nature of the moral choices his works present.

-Polaris

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sifren,

Except that this very quote denigrate his opinion of the VERY AUDIENCE HE WANTS TO CONVINCE of their ability to make "real" moral choices. It's at minimum mindnumbingly arrogant. At worst it shows blatent disregard for the valid criticism of the actual nature of the moral choices his works present.

-Polaris

Again, I'd have to read that in its original context.  I'm NOT going to take your word for anything unless and until you either give me a full quote, or link me to the original.  It's intellectually dishonest yourself to expect anyone to to take what you say at face value when you haven't once ever bothered to provide quotes in context.

[IanPolaris]

Silfren wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Sifren,

Except that this very quote denigrate his opinion of the VERY AUDIENCE HE WANTS TO CONVINCE of their ability to make "real" moral choices. It's at minimum mindnumbingly arrogant. At worst it shows blatent disregard for the valid criticism of the actual nature of the moral choices his works present.

-Polaris

Again, I'd have to read that in its original context. I'm NOT going to take your word for anything unless and until you either give me a full quote, or link me to the original. It's intellectually dishonest yourself to expect anyone to to take what you say at face value when you haven't once ever bothered to provide quotes in context.

Actually I was refering to the quote you said you read in that post so I think I was being very fair really.

-Polaris

[Silfren]

double post. 

Modifié par Silfren, 16 mai 2011 - 07:29 .

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

Silfren wrote...

IanPolaris
wrote...

Sifren,

Except that this very quote denigrate
his opinion of the VERY AUDIENCE HE WANTS TO CONVINCE of their ability
to make "real" moral choices. It's at minimum mindnumbingly arrogant. At
worst it shows blatent disregard for the valid criticism of the actual
nature of the moral choices his works present.

-Polaris

Again,
I'd have to read that in its original context. I'm NOT going to take
your word for anything unless and until you either give me a full quote,
or link me to the original. It's intellectually dishonest yourself
to expect anyone to to take what you say at face value when you haven't
once ever bothered to provide quotes in context.

Actually
I was refering to the quote you said you read in that post so I think I
was being very fair really.

-Polaris

To be fair, I said I think I recall seeing it.  I won't swear that I didn't see it first referenced by yourself, actually. But it is definitely familiar.  That said, however, I don't remember anything specific, and not the context it was in.

Modifié par Silfren, 16 mai 2011 - 07:30 .

[IanPolaris]

Here is DG's post in "Annulment Illegal". Took a while but I found it and DG does indeed say that mages are not innocent because they are mages.

http://social.biowar...1321/11#6994452

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Yes, Meredith's act of genocide against innocent men, women, and children was completely legal according to Chantry law.

"Innocent" in this case being the mages of the Circle, yes.

Who are innocent in the manner of, say, a kitten that CAN EXPLODE IN YOUR FACE AND TAKE OUT AN ENTIRE CITY BLOCK IF YOU TOUCH IT... and might also bite your nose just because. But relatively innocent nonetheless.

At any rate, yes. Legally the templars and the Chantry are required to protect the public (who are innocent in the maner of not being the explode-in-your-face sort of kitten) from the Circle's potential dangers... or that is the intention, anyhow.

I think that quote says it all and it certainly cost DG what little respect I had left for him.

-Polaris

Edit:  Two pages later in the same thread (and I won't bother linking it since it's only two pages past the initial link already posted) DG accussed those defending mages a being "incredibly naive" which is why he plays "Devil's Advocate" which at least suggests that there are deeper reasons for "Mage Insanity" in DA2 past that of merely making money.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 16 mai 2011 - 07:39 .

[Rifneno]

Silfren wrote...

I've seen that DG quote about people only siding with mages because of our backgrounds, I think, and I do have to admit he has an extremely valid and fair point.  None of us can speak from the direct experience of living in close proximity to people who have the ability to start fires with only the power of their mind, and who attract demons more or less like magnets.  I also agree that a lot of people living in Western nations absolutely do live very comfortable lives without having to worry about grave matters of survival for the most part.  I don't know that I'd go so far as to say none of us are capable of appreciating real moral choice, but it is definitely a truism that most of us live very comfortably in comparison to the vast majority of human beings in the world.  The fact that we are able to have an ongoing discussion, for well over a hundred pages now, about a video game, and can armchair-philosophize about moral decisions that most of us will very likely never have to face in our daily lives speaks directly to this.

We don't live in a world with people who can start fires with their minds, but we do live in a world where things far more destructive exist.

Actually, I've used the argument before that "lock up the mages because they might inadvertantly kill a bunch of people" could be used to justify locking up anyone too smart IRL.  Or outright kill them since they can figure out how to get out of anything.  "That's stupid, intelligence doesn't let you kill people with your mind."  No, it's worse.  It lets you invent things that kills masses of people.  I'll take the most obvious example.  Nuclear weapons.  Ignoring religious beliefs about the end of the world, it's highly likely these things will be what destroys our entire race eventually.  Not just ours either, a lot of species will go down with us.  Magic is dangerous, but I never saw a spell that makes the planet uninhabitable for anything except krogan for a few thousand years.  And it's not just superbombs, that's just the most extreme example.  Almost every weapon of war is because of someone being too smart.

[Silfren]

Rifneno wrote...

Silfren wrote...

I've seen that DG quote about people only siding with mages because of our backgrounds, I think, and I do have to admit he has an extremely valid and fair point.  None of us can speak from the direct experience of living in close proximity to people who have the ability to start fires with only the power of their mind, and who attract demons more or less like magnets.  I also agree that a lot of people living in Western nations absolutely do live very comfortable lives without having to worry about grave matters of survival for the most part.  I don't know that I'd go so far as to say none of us are capable of appreciating real moral choice, but it is definitely a truism that most of us live very comfortably in comparison to the vast majority of human beings in the world.  The fact that we are able to have an ongoing discussion, for well over a hundred pages now, about a video game, and can armchair-philosophize about moral decisions that most of us will very likely never have to face in our daily lives speaks directly to this.

We don't live in a world with people who can start fires with their minds, but we do live in a world where things far more destructive exist.

Actually, I've used the argument before that "lock up the mages because they might inadvertantly kill a bunch of people" could be used to justify locking up anyone too smart IRL.  Or outright kill them since they can figure out how to get out of anything.  "That's stupid, intelligence doesn't let you kill people with your mind."  No, it's worse.  It lets you invent things that kills masses of people.  I'll take the most obvious example.  Nuclear weapons.  Ignoring religious beliefs about the end of the world, it's highly likely these things will be what destroys our entire race eventually.  Not just ours either, a lot of species will go down with us.  Magic is dangerous, but I never saw a spell that makes the planet uninhabitable for anything except krogan for a few thousand years.  And it's not just superbombs, that's just the most extreme example.  Almost every weapon of war is because of someone being too smart.

I think the thing is that there truly is no real world example that is truly analogous.  Even the argument you pose about people's intelligence being the catalyst for the creation of mass-kill weaponry.  It's as close as we're likely to get because real world human beings cannot cause fires or explosions or insta-freezes with the power of their mind and well-placed hand gestures.  But it's still not an ever-present, immediate risk in the same way that a next-door-neighbor mage would be.  And yes, I know that a lot of people would scoff at that idea, what with so many nations waging pissing contests against one another.  But let's face it: how many of us really go about our daily lives with the threat of nuclear annihilation on our minds, even though it is a decided possibility? The only example that is truly a parallel is just another fictitious example: the mutants of Marvel Comics.  And even that's not precisely parallel because of the general lock of demonic attraction.  

I still hold that it's unjust to lock up people for what they might do, when you could easily counter the potential danger in more humane ways--and I also believe that there's a degree of risk that just has to be accepted as a fact of life, because even under ideal safety conditions, you're never going to be totally 100% free of danger.  But I can still appreciate that the lore behind mages in Dragon Age 2 presents us with a situation that has no real world comparison.  I can't claim I wouldn't feel completely different about the matter if I were a peasant living in Thedas...and I'll qualify that to say there's no guarantee that mages wouldn't scare the ****** out of me even if I was cynical and didn't hold to Andrastian dogma.

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

Here is DG's post in "Annulment Illegal". Took a while but I found it and DG does indeed say that mages are not innocent because they are mages.

http://social.biowar...1321/11#6994452

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Yes, Meredith's act of genocide against innocent men, women, and children was completely legal according to Chantry law.

"Innocent" in this case being the mages of the Circle, yes.

Who are innocent in the manner of, say, a kitten that CAN EXPLODE IN YOUR FACE AND TAKE OUT AN ENTIRE CITY BLOCK IF YOU TOUCH IT... and might also bite your nose just because. But relatively innocent nonetheless.

At any rate, yes. Legally the templars and the Chantry are required to protect the public (who are innocent in the maner of not being the explode-in-your-face sort of kitten) from the Circle's potential dangers... or that is the intention, anyhow.

I think that quote says it all and it certainly cost DG what little respect I had left for him.

-Polaris

Edit:  Two pages later in the same thread (and I won't bother linking it since it's only two pages past the initial link already posted) DG accussed those defending mages a being "incredibly naive" which is why he plays "Devil's Advocate" which at least suggests that there are deeper reasons for "Mage Insanity" in DA2 past that of merely making money.

....And I am compelled to say that I think it supports my original interpretation.  I think all that DG is trying to say here is that the inherent potential danger of mages makes them "innocent" in the same way that a hot electrical wire is innocent.  In other words he's trying to make a general statement to the innate danger they carry.  Okay, that's a very crude analogy, but there it is.  I see nothing whatsoever that suggests he's trying to say that mages are automatically evil and guilty.  He's just trying to re-iterate the lore point about mages carrying a potential for danger that non-mages of Thedas simply don't.  Just like an electrical wire lying on the ground that doesn't appear to be hot...it'll kill you just as dead.  Yes, crude, but I fail to see any evil in DG's statement.

[Rifneno]

Silfren wrote...

I think the thing is that there truly is no real world example that is truly analogous.  Even the argument you pose about people's intelligence being the catalyst for the creation of mass-kill weaponry.  It's as close as we're likely to get because real world human beings cannot cause fires or explosions or insta-freezes with the power of their mind and well-placed hand gestures.  But it's still not an ever-present, immediate risk in the same way that a next-door-neighbor mage would be.  And yes, I know that a lot of people would scoff at that idea, what with so many nations waging pissing contests against one another.  But let's face it: how many of us really go about our daily lives with the threat of nuclear annihilation on our minds, even though it is a decided possibility? The only example that is truly a parallel is just another fictitious example: the mutants of Marvel Comics.  And even that's not precisely parallel because of the general lock of demonic attraction.

Actually, it does give the ever-present, immediate risk because it gives every psychopath weapons as potent as blood magic.  Just look at all the people shooting up their schools or workplaces.  The demonic thing is true, but we don't really know how big a risk it is.  There's no scientific data on the rate of demonic influence or possession in various situations.  We can only guess.  And not even educated guesses, we have to blindly guess.

Silfren wrote...
....And I am compelled to say that I think it supports my original interpretation.  I think all that DG is trying to say here is that the inherent potential danger of mages makes them "innocent" in the same way that a hot electrical wire is innocent.  In other words he's trying to make a general statement to the innate danger they carry.  Okay, that's a very crude analogy, but there it is.  I see nothing whatsoever that suggests he's trying to say that mages are automatically evil and guilty.  He's just trying to re-iterate the lore point about mages carrying a potential for danger that non-mages of Thedas simply don't.  Just like an electrical wire lying on the ground that doesn't appear to be hot...it'll kill you just as dead.  Yes, crude, but I fail to see any evil in DG's statement.

Actually I have to agree with IanPolaris on it.  Perhaps not to the same degree, but I certainly lost a good deal of respect for DG seeing him misuse the word "innocent" like that.  That's exactly why I got into it with Beerfish originally.  Being dangerous has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.  I also have to wonder why he would get into that debate.  How many stupid debates take place around here?  Why get into that one?

Anyway, if his entire point was to show us the other side of it then he failed hard because we see that the system in place only makes things worse by encouraging possession and blood magic.

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

well when you talk to her she's not subtle sure. other than that though she could've kept her emotions bottled up.

I've kept mine bottled up for 5 years now. I'm starting to run out of bottles though...

Might wanna watch that.  It's never fun when you suddenly drop a dozen bottles and they all shatter at once...

Oh believe me, I know. It's not pretty.

[Lewie]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sifren,

Except that this very quote denigrate his opinion of the VERY AUDIENCE HE WANTS TO CONVINCE of their ability to make "real" moral choices. It's at minimum mindnumbingly arrogant. At worst it shows blatent disregard for the valid criticism of the actual nature of the moral choices his works present.

-Polaris

Is it not mindnumbingly arrogant that you think that people can't make their own real 'moral' choices? 

[IanPolaris]

louise101 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Sifren,

Except that this very quote denigrate his opinion of the VERY AUDIENCE HE WANTS TO CONVINCE of their ability to make "real" moral choices. It's at minimum mindnumbingly arrogant. At worst it shows blatent disregard for the valid criticism of the actual nature of the moral choices his works present.

-Polaris

Is it not mindnumbingly arrogant that you think that people can't make their own real 'moral' choices? 

I am not the lead writer.  That makes a difference.  I am not trying to 'convince' my audience to see my moral vision and then denigrate them when they don't.  In short because I am just one more player, I have a lot more lattitude than DG does.

-Polaris

[Xilizhra]

I like and respect David Gaider on most things, especially his handling of the sexual orientation whining. This is not one of them.

[TJPags]

So, what's new in here? I see we're on the "David Gaider hates mages and wants everyone else to hate them too!!!" kick, huh?

Cool. I wonder why there was even a choice to side with the mages in DA2, then . . .

[KnightofPhoenix]

I am more of the opinion hat it's post-game rationalization more than a pre-planned scheme. But I don't really care to speculate about this. What matters is that the portrayal was bad (not the only thing that was bad) and that the conflict deserves a more nuanced and complex interpretation.

[IanPolaris]

TJPags wrote...

So, what's new in here? I see we're on the "David Gaider hates mages and wants everyone else to hate them too!!!" kick, huh?

Cool. I wonder why there was even a choice to side with the mages in DA2, then . . .

I actually honestly wonder at times myself.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I am more of the opinion hat it's post-game rationalization more than a pre-planned scheme. But I don't really care to speculate about this. What matters is that the portrayal was bad (not the only thing that was bad) and that the conflict deserves a more nuanced and complex interpretation.

Perhaps.  It's hard to say either way but you seem to be a bit more generous about this than I am prepared to be.  Regardless it looks really bad either way and for exactly the reason you mention.

If you really want people to believe this is a grey choice, then you should have laudable people pick both sides for very understandable reasons as well as the usual head-cases.  If you find you can't do that without skewing the data or altering your game-world/game-lore, then perhaps the conflict isn't as 'grey' as you thought it was.  Just saying.

-Polaris

[Xilizhra]

Well, you can also sell Fenris back to Danarius, allow Torpor to possess Feynriel, and wipe out the entire Dalish clan with the werewolves in Origins...