4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Erm, only one blood mage was going on a rampage through the streets. There were a few more in the Gallows, but...

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
That's only with DA2, when they made abominations pop up like summoned creatures what were they thinking?). With DA:O, it was mostly consistent.

Not denying that the writers don't seem to know what they are doing, seeing how DA2 turned out. Still, the historical evidence we have seems to indicate that the Chantry did not face huge abomination problems when fighting the Qunari. So the excuse that mages are a terrible threat to the army hence we shouldn't use them is weak.

It is only used because Gaider has stated again and again that mages are dangerous and feared with good reason. I thought he of all people would know what he's talking about.

But then again: We don't know how many mages there are (among the Dliash they are extraordinarily rare). We can't even begin to guess how much havoc they can wreck or how often it happens. And is there a difference between an abomination and possession? There's so much that is only hinted at but never cleared up.

Modifié par klarabella, 08 mai 2011 - 04:50 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
As for Chantry supervision. It proved to be utterly pathetic in DA2. I would buy the lack of technology as a very serious obstacle, if DA2 didn't have a span of 7 years. The Divine, instead of trying to fix the problem by removing one of its sources (Meredith), has the audacity to seriously contemplate an Exalted March on an Andrastrian country as her first reaction. As if she already determined that Kirkwall is no longer a sovereign state and that it's Chantry property because her pet Meredith has taken control of it.

That's something that annoyed me, too. The big time jumps are so incredibly pointless. The framed narrative doesn't work at all.

Calling an Exalted March on Kirkwall made no sense to me. What for?
You mean, she called an Exalted March because the nobles and the people would seek to oppose Meredith?
Of course, the nobles would grow impatient. Tell Meredith to vacate the viscount's seat and appoint a new Knight-Commander, while you're it.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this level of idiocy. I firmly believe the writers neither meant Elthina nor the Divine to be utter morons.

Personally, I think Orsino, Meredith, Elthina, the Divine, Anders, Isabela, Dalish Keeper and even Hawke are all morons.

I hope it was deliberate, because if not, it's worrying. I've never seen a cast this full of idiocy.

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...
It is only used because Gaider has stated again and again that mages are dangerous and feared with good reason. I thought he of all people would know what he's talking about.

And no one is saying that they aren't dangerous and shouldnt' be feared (and I think the writers went in overkill mode in DA2 to try and prove that, hence the amount of ridiculous we had).

What I am saying is that if the mages are such an unavoidable threat to the army, then the Chantry that fully mobalized them to war would have been screwed. But it was the mages who turned the tide. So the benefits far outweigh the risks and there are ways to prepare for it.

Of course, DA2's version of mages would have them turn into abominations in seconds and summon a dozen whiule they are at it. Sigh

[Xilizhra]

Only three mages turn into spontaneous abominations... Olivia, Evelina, and that one at the beginning of The Last Straw.

[EmperorSahlertz]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Only the Templars and the Mages are trained to udnerstand the dangers of magic, and only the Templars are trained to combat it. And now you want to place this incredible power, into the hands of ignorants and politicians? Politicians who would rather commit the mages to protect their own lands than Ostagar, or who wouldn't risk their most powerful tool in a battle which was assumed to be won already? At least the Chantry can act decisevely, and cares nohting for politics of that sort.

The Chantry cares nothing about politics? lol
Yes the Chantry was so decisive, that they only sent 7 mages to war.

Yes, I'd rather have politicians handle it. Furthermore, Templar like warirors can be maintainned by the state. And it should be under the control of the crown, not the nobility. If Ferelden's nobility can't handle it, then it's the fault of the state in question itself, not the system or the idea. 

As for "ignorance". Who is responsable for breeding that ignorance amongst the populace hmm?

 The Chantry cares nohting for the Bann of wherethehellamI's lands. No, they really don't.
With the Chantry being an outside institusion, they can actually step in and send mages at all. had it been up to politicians, the army would have been lucky to have recieved any at all.
And why would the Chantry ever give up the secrets of Templar trainning? So that they could diminish their own power? What a great idea. I didn't say that the Chantry didn't care for politics. I said tehy didn't care about local politics. The Chantry has power. The most important thing for the ones in power, is to know how to keep it. If mages are to be controlled by the states. Then the states can swim in their sea. The Chantry will keep their Templars ready, for when the states comes crying back.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Just because I didn't face an abomination during the fight in Denerim doesn't mean there weren't actually one, or more, which were created in the fight. Even if there weren't, the chance of one being created, is still present, which could have spelled doom for Ferelden.

One or two is not going to be disastrous. 
With enough supervision and strong training to be able to withstand psychological pressure, such a risk would be alleviated.

There is always risk in war.

A single Abomination has been known to destroy entire cities. A single Abomination could have been disastrous for Ferelden. Two could have been apocalyptical. Luckily an Abomination is rare, and the most powerful ones even more so. Nevertheless, the chances of them possessing mages, are everpresent. And needs to be accounted.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

All the previous Exalted Marches has resulted in genocide, I have no reason to think the Kirkwall one, would have been any different. It is, however, not the Divine who calls for genocide, it is the generals who joins the Exalted March, who in their fervor, destroys the enemy.

Of course, the poor Chantry has nothing to do with it. They just call the others unbelieving heretical scum, call for an exalted march and don't set up rules of engagement, but all the bad things that happen are not due to the Chantry at all.

Both are at fault and to try to absolve the Chantry of responsability constantly is just futile.

Did I say the Chantry weren't responsible? I don't recall I did. You msut be able to read things I don't write. A marvellous ability really. I said that genocide wasn't exactly what the Divine called for, but because of the fervor created by the Chantry doing such a March, it is what it ends up as. So tell me again, where did I absolve the Chantry, Hmm?

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And she has the right to call it. There is no way around it. You can whine all you want. It won't cahnge that the announcement of an Exalted March is within the rights of a Divine. Of course when she announces it, she needs to have the right reasons, to create conviction within the nations she is hoping will join. Her reasons aren't going to be "because I said so!", but more likely "We can not allow this Tevinter Mk. II to gain foothold!" which is a prospect most of Thedas would agree with, and would therefore join the Exalted March.

Let's assume that it is her right to be an idiot. Prudence would dictate that she shouldnt' be an idiot.
Whether she has the legal right to is completely irrelevent to me. What matters is that an Exalted march on Kirkwall would have been stupid, especially when she could just at least try to remove Meredith, regardless of whether she has the right to or not. 

And that's her first reaction to seemingly every problem that arises (see Orzammar and Berkel as well).

Would it? If the Kirkwall Circle had succesfully rebelled, and created a new Tevinter, I bet the Divine would have felt pretty stupid not having called for an Exalted March. When the potential loss/threat outweighs the potential gain, it is sometimes easier to call blank slate. Destroy Kirkwall, burn it down to the ground and be rid of that cesspit.
The support of the Kirkwall people is completely irrelevant when Kirkwall is the target of the Exalted March. The Chantry still had the support of the rest of Thedas. Actually, the Divine should have called for the Exalted March earlier, while the situation was still remotely containable.

[Xilizhra]

One Circle in one city-state recreating the entire Imperium? What?

[Silfren]

Agamo45 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Yeah, and if you're referring to the qunari battle, that "nice" chat involves very thinly veiled hostility on Bethany's part.  Seriously, her resentment toward Hawke isn't really player interpretation.  Also, her codex states that she is resentful toward Hawke for the reasons I stated. She doesn't "fight with you all the way" in Lowtown, either.  She's fighting with the Wardens, not Hawke, and runs into Hawke's group in the process.  They don't talk until the fight is over, and then the Wardens themselves keep their reunion extremely brief, because of that unnamed Important Business the Wardens are on their way to dealing with.

Yeah.  There's even dialogue at the end about her resentfulness.  "I'm sorry... you saved my life and I didn't even realize it."

Agamo45 wrote...
Annuling the Circle was the only viable short-term solution. After Anders blew up the Chantry the mages were going on a rampage in the streets, as evidenced by the blood mages and abominations that you encounter. Order had to be restored to protect the citizens of Kirkwall, and the only way to do that was to wipe out the rebelling Circle.

*facepalm*

You can't try to kill someone, then use the damage they cause in self-defense to justify killing them in the first place.  That's not only circular logic, it's magnificently stupid.

It's a good enough excuse. The Kirkwall Circle was corrupt from top to bottom, even Orsino turns out to be a maleficar, or is hiding one.

The circular logic here's already been addressed, but what the hell, I'll give it a ago.

We don't find out about Orsino's involvement with Quentin until after the Annulment has been called and put into action.  So you can't exactly use meta-gaming knowledge to justify the character's reasoning.

Yes, you could argue, from Hawke's position, that once Meredith has called Annulment and triggered a panic among the mages, driving them to blood magic and demon involvement out of a desperate bid to survive, Hawke has pragmatic reasons to assist with the Annulment to restore order.  But with this reasoning, you're only going along with the annulment because the batcrazy Knight-Commander has triggered an inevitable descent into chaos and forced your hands. 

What you can't do is claim that seeing mages rebelling justifies the Annulment having been invoked, because it is that invoking that triggered the panic in the first place.  Cause-and-effect doesn't work that way.

Modifié par Silfren, 08 mai 2011 - 06:21 .

[Xilizhra]

We don't find out about Orsino's involvement with Quentin until after the Annulment has been called and put into action. So you can't exactly use meta-gaming knowledge to justify the character's reasoning.

And there's no evidence to suggest that he was involved with Quentin's research when it started to go bad anyway.

[nos_astra]

Xilizhra wrote...

We don't find out about Orsino's involvement with Quentin until after the Annulment has been called and put into action. So you can't exactly use meta-gaming knowledge to justify the character's reasoning.

And there's no evidence to suggest that he was involved with Quentin's research when it started to go bad anyway.

You mean, other than the note you find at Questin's hideout?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

We don't find out about Orsino's involvement with Quentin until after the Annulment has been called and put into action. So you can't exactly use meta-gaming knowledge to justify the character's reasoning.

And there's no evidence to suggest that he was involved with Quentin's research when it started to go bad anyway.

He send him books concerning Blood Magic. Already there it has gone bad.

[Master Shiori]

LobselVith8 wrote...


So we should assume all the information that Anders says is biased when he's the former Circle mage?

Yes, just as I would asume the information Meredith, Karras or Mettin give is also biased, considering their attitude towards mages.

When someone hates a particular group of people or an organization, then it's likely that he would allow such hate to color his views of it.
Anders hardly has anything good to say about the Ferelden Circle while mages like Wynne and Finn paint an far different picture. My experience from dealing with the said Circle in Origins and Witch Hunt makes me more inclined to believe their version over Anders'.

LobselVith8 wrote...



Or he's explaining why he's part of the mage underground in the first place by explaining how bad it is for mages living in the Chantry controlled Circles.

Or him being in the mage underground means he's trying to make you sympathetic to his cause. He does, after all, ask for your support on several occasions and even tries to convince others of his views. 
He also claimed that the templars in Kirkwall were planning to make every mage tranquil within a year, only to later realize it was a plan of a single templar and that the Divine, the Grand Cleric and the Knight Commander all refused the idea.
And let's not even mention how he lied about a potion that would seperate him from Justice. In face of that I think it's my right to take anything Anders says with a grain of salt.

LobselVith8 wrote...



Anders is the only former Circle mage companion we have. Merrill is one of the Dalish, after all, and Hawke (and Bethany) weren't raised in the Circle of Magi.

He may be the only companion from the Circle, but he's not the only Circle mage you encounter over the course of the game. I'm pretty sure Orsino himself would mention the suicide rate when arguing for you support, as would other mages.
The fact that only Anders ever brings it up, makes his claim questionable at best.

LobselVith8 wrote...



I disagree. Mages are raised in an oppressive place (as even Wynne admits it is when The Warden from the Circle of Magi addresses this) where they are governed by templars who belong to a religious organization preaching that mages are cursed. Mages were imprisoned in the Andrastian nations because, centuries ago, mages protested their lack of rights in Orlais, and narrowly avoided an Exalted March because the templars convinced Divine Ambrosia II out of the idea. Mages should be properly trained, not imprisoned for the rest of their lives in a dictatorship.

Mages are trained in the Circle. Wynne, Anders, Finn, Orsino, Uldred, Decimus, Grace and miriad of other mages all learned to control their powers there.
The fact that Circle mages may also be subject to abuse from the templars doesn't change this.

LobselVith8 wrote...



I'm addressing what Bethany said and her reasons for changing her mind - Bethany thinks that the Maker doesn't want mages to be imprisoned when she talks to Hawke in the pro-mage ending because of the years she spent in the Circle of Kirkwall.

I know what she says. I'm saying that bringing up an absent deity who, as far as we can tell, might not even exist doesn't help either side of the argument.
Claiming the the Maker wants mages to be free is as valid as claiming he wants them imprisoned. Unless he actually makes his will known we cannot say what he thinks about it or if he even exists.

As for Bethany wanting to be free of the Circle, I support that. She is, imo, the most responsible mage in the entire game, next to mage Hawke.

LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider addressed that chevaliers don't have a legal right to rape women.

Can you provide a link for that?

I'm posting what was said in Origins by an Orlesian woman who fled her homeland after her brother hit a chevalier who tried to rape her.
Loghain himself also said that chevaliers were free to rape Fereldan women during the occupation, which supports the above claim.

So either they do have that right, or those who are supposed to punish such crimes are so ineffective that chevaliers don't even care about breaking the law.

LobselVith8 wrote...



The Chasind Wilders, the Avvar tribes, the Dalish clans, and the kingdom of Rivain showed what happened once mages are free. The Imperium shows that Magisters have no problem ensaving both non-mages and mages as well.

We don't know the details of how mages function among the Avvars or the Chasind. Also, those societies are primitive when compared to countries like Antiva or Orlais, so they may even see mages as some sort of divine beings rather normal humans with the ability to control magic.
Rivaini do revere their female women or witches, even if they allow themselves to be possessed. That, however, is hardly enough knowledge to make a fair judgement on mages there.

The most knowledge we have of mages outside the Chantry controlled lands is Tevinter, both due to what Fenris tells us and because of what we can read in the codex (granted nothing within the codex is 100% accurate). 
I certainly wouldn't call a land where mages keep slaves or make human sacrifices in order to provide power for their spells to be a shinning example of mage freedom.

LobselVith8 wrote...


Let's ask the Warden mages who are free from the Chantry and the templars, but dedicate their lives to protecting the people of Thedas against the darkspawn.

Those mages cannot live a normal life due to the taint within them. They cannot sire children, are plagued by nightmares and doomed to die fighting darkspawn. Being a Warden is a calling, not a profession.
They make great sacrifices to become Wardens, and I highly doubt all of them are happy to do so. Bethany sure didn't look thrilled.

LobselVith8 wrote...



Mages don't need to be oppressed in a dictatorship under the rule of an organization that sees them as cursed. We've seen where that leads to: a rebellion across the continent, and the world on the brink of war.

Ok, since we obviously cannot agree to disagree, I'll just repeat my opinion on the matter this once and drop it.

I believe that any mage who proves himself responsible should be allowed full freedom like any other person.. That, however, is something the mage needs to earn, not take for granted.

I also believe that an organization like the templars is needed to ensure mages never abuse their powers or bring harm to others, but this doesn't give templars the right to torture or abuse the mages under their care. Any that do so need to be dealt with in the same manner as any other criminal.

And no, I don't support acts of terrorism by either side, no matter what their reasoning.

For details feel free to read my thoughts on reforms for the Circle and the templars in another topic on these forums. 

[TobiTobsen]

klarabella wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

We don't find out about Orsino's involvement with Quentin until after the Annulment has been called and put into action. So you can't exactly use meta-gaming knowledge to justify the character's reasoning.

And there's no evidence to suggest that he was involved with Quentin's research when it started to go bad anyway.

You mean, other than the note you find at Questin's hideout?

Exactly. Quentins books on necromancy are provided by Orsino. He enabled Quentins "experiments" in the first place or allowed him to improve them.

Modifié par TobiTobsen, 08 mai 2011 - 05:00 .

[Xilizhra]

But he also calls his research too evil and dangerous to use. So he was interested in necromancy, but presumably not the really heavy stuff.

[Silfren]

Agamo45 wrote...
You fight terror with terror.

I'm not sure this is going to end well, but I can't not address it.  First, I always have found it disturbingly amusing that people who find terrorism horrific and morally unjustifiable by any means...still manage to think that fighting back with terror is the proper response. 

Also, I have far too many friends who are or were in active service who have soundly rejected that notion.  You don't fight terror with terror, ever, because it only perpetuates the cycle.  It never, ever proves effective at its stated goal.  Far more often it simply creates more terrorists, and even better, fuels greater sympathy for those terrorists.  

See the problem?

Pages upon pages upon pages have been written on what the proper way to fight terrorism is.  Mostly it involves fostering good will.  But that's a lesson hard learned.

Modifié par Silfren, 08 mai 2011 - 05:02 .

[TobiTobsen]

Xilizhra wrote...

But he also calls his research too evil and dangerous to use. So he was interested in necromancy, but presumably not the really heavy stuff.

That's what he tells his "allies" in the mage ending, before he (surprise!) uses it and turns on you. The story is a little bit different in the templar ending, where he gloats about his connection to Quentin and the fact that he supported him and is a "little bit" mad.

Modifié par TobiTobsen, 08 mai 2011 - 05:05 .

[Silfren]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The mages weren't terrorists, the mage underground was about Circle mages trying to escape from a system that Anders and a pro-mage Hawke describe as slavery. And you're right - Anders wasn't working alone, because Hawke is the one who can help him. Given that Anders admits that the underground has collapsed and he's pretty much all alone, there's no evidence he had aid from anyone other than the Champion himself. So we're back to the fact that countless men, women, and children are going to be brutally murdered for something that they had absolutely nothing to do with.

Never minding that even if Anders was working with an underground...that still wasn't the Circle mages.  Wasn't the underground a group of apostates working to free Circle mages who wanted out?  I'm not sure that someone being assisted by an underground can be considered to be in league with them.

[Xilizhra]

TobiTobsen wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

But he also calls his research too evil and dangerous to use. So he was interested in necromancy, but presumably not the really heavy stuff.

That's what he tells his "allies" in the mage ending, before he (surprise!) uses it and turns on you. The story is a little bit different in the templar ending, where he gloats about his connection to Quentin and the fact that he supported him and is a "little bit" mad.

He doesn't turn on us consciously, he loses control of the Harvester form, so far as I can tell. And I saw the templar ending; I'll forgive him some taunting of the person murdering all of his people.

[Plaintiff]

TJPags wrote...
Sure they do.  But, how did they change? Clearly, you thought that more mages wanted freedom 7 years later.  I wonder why we're not shown any information to make this decision?  Is it because your assumption is not true, or because it's supposed to be self-evident?  I don't know, and I'm not willing to say there was such a huge shift without evidence of it.

I'm not assuming anything. It seems to me that you're the one assuming that a vote called forever ago would somehow apply almost a decade down the line. That's the thing about votes, they need to be called regularly, in case people change their mind.

Oh, we don't know that at all, do we?  Do we really know that Templars all across Thedas in every other Circle didn't begin some kind of purge?  Some variation of the methods Meredith used?  Do we know that mages were not treated worse after Anders actions, thus forcing them to take action they otherwise did not want?

Varric pretty much explicitly tells us that the mages rose up after being inspired by the events that occured in Kirkwall. If there was any further templar involvement then it's not mentioned. I'm going by what we are told, rather than what we aren't.

Again, do we know this?  Do we know that each Circle found out and said, "yea, us too!!!!!"?  Or did the Templars act in such a way to make it, at least in the mages minds, necessary to do so?  Suppose, for instance, Templars began torturing mages in other Circles to find out what they knew?  That could certainly be enough to rebel, but is it because they so strongly want freedom, or because they don't want such abuse?

If the Templars did any such thing, then they are responsible for their own actions. No matter what Anders did, he did not "force" anyone to do anything anymore than calling someone names "forces" them to punch you. Assuming that you're right and there was yet another indeterminate period of "push and shove" after Anders' little light show, then that only further absolves him because the final spark could be an enitrely separate event that occured months or even a year later. 

I'm not saying your assumptions are wrong.  I'm saying that, from evidence in game, there is not a lot of support for them.  They could be true, of course.  But is it fact? 

Is it fact that a large group of mages wanted this - "this" being an all out war for freedom?  I don't see the game evidence for this.  KoP pointed out the Libertarians were voted down, and the Resolutions are a minority splinter group of the Libertarians.  How large, we don't know.  But they don't seem to trumpet the view of even most of their own group, let alone most of all mages.

Maybe my interpretation of events isn't fact, but there's no mention of a tempalr crackdown after Kirkwall. Varric doesn't know everything of course, but he's the only source of information we have at this juncture and that's what I'm basing my argument on. But laying the blame squarely at Anders feet is ignoring the fact that plenty of people who have far more power than he did, had the chance to prevent war breaking out and didn't do so. There's no denying that his actions were provocative, but saying he "forced" it suggests to me that not a single person in Thedas is capable of making their own rational decsions.

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
The Chantry cares nohting for the Bann of wherethehellamI's lands. No, they really don't.
With the Chantry being an outside institusion, they can actually step in and send mages at all. had it been up to politicians, the army would have been lucky to have recieved any at all.

They care about other things, like assisting Orlesian occupation of Ferelden. Lyrium trade and relations with Orzammar...etc. Their interest in politics is there, but on a different scale.

And enough with the villification of politicians. If Ferelden's crown had jurisdiction over the mages, they can send them to war decisevily whenever they are needed. The Crown was what requested them in the first place. Why would mages become tools of individual banns when the Circle would be under Crown jurisdiction?
If Ferelden in particular can't handle it, it's because of its outdated feudal system which should change. Not all states suffer the same problem. The problem is thus not with the idea, but with the state in question. Which does not justify the Chantry's monopoly's continued existence.

And the Chantry doesn't step in, that's the point. Not unless they get their ass kicked for decades.

And why would the Chantry ever give up the secrets of Templar trainning? So that they could diminish their own power? What a great idea.

Who said they would give it willingly?
States should throw the institution in the garbage of history, or limit its power considerably and take the secrets for themselves.

No where did I say that I don't understand why the Chantry isn't doing all this. I know exactly why. States hwoever should stop caring about Chantry power.

A single Abomination has been known to destroy entire cities. A single Abomination could have been disastrous for Ferelden. Two could have been apocalyptical. Luckily an Abomination is rare, and the most powerful ones even more so. Nevertheless, the chances of them possessing mages, are everpresent. And needs to be accounted.

No, small villages.
And when they are not under the constant supervision of Templars / Templar like warriors. Like they would be if in an army.

Your apocalyptic vision of things is amusing. Had it been the case, Kirkwall would have been erased from existence a long time ago.

I said that genocide wasn't exactly what the Divine called for,

How do you know?

Would it? If the Kirkwall Circle had succesfully rebelled, and created a new Tevinter, I bet the Divine would have felt pretty stupid not having called for an Exalted March.

There is something called self-fullfilling prophecy.

She can consider an Exalted march as a last resort, when she is at least trying to investigate other options, like removing Meredith. But she is not.  Her main priority should have been to alleviate popular anger aganst the Templars which would have been instrumental in restoring order. Not make it worse. 

And I am not even mentionning the international implicatosn of such an act.

When the potential loss/threat outweighs the potential gain, it is sometimes easier to call blank slate. Destroy Kirkwall, burn it down to the ground and be rid of that cesspit.

Zevran: "Committing genocide just because something might happen is more than the mark of a weak mind. It is insanity."

And I agree. If the only thing the Chantry thinks it can do is genocide against Andrastrians to fix its problems, then it's not the institution needed to handle this (wasn't the point of the Chantry to help save lives?). Off with it and replace it with something more efficient.

The support of the Kirkwall people is completely irrelevant when Kirkwall is the target of the Exalted March. The Chantry still had the support of the rest of Thedas. Actually, the Divine should have called for the Exalted March earlier, while the situation was still remotely containable.

Yes, because no one is going to see this Exalted March for what it is (Orlesian expansionism). Who do you think is going to man the Exalted march? What do you think Nevarra is going to think about Orlais conquering its neighbors? What do you think Andrastrian states would think after they've seen the Chantry not only strip a state of its legitimate govenrment (or reduce them to mere puppets), but exterminate an entire population? What is the average Andrastrian everywhere goign to think?  

You honestly think all of Thedas is that stupid to watch and go "oh well, **** happens" ? To such an unprecedented event?

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 mai 2011 - 05:14 .

[Silfren]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

And none of that has anything to do with what I mentioned. 

I respectfully disagree. The harmful enviornment of the Gallows is the reason why mages keep running from it, and it's the crux of the situation you mentioned: mages being outside of the Gallows, and templars being unable to prevent this. I'd agree it's not the whole issue - I'm certain that Meredith's power play also played a role, and having templars occupy the Viscount's Keep demonstrated the reign of the de facto dictator, but the templars couldn't keep some mages in the Gallows because of the way some templars acted towards the mages, and the overall enviornment that was both mentally and physically harmful to them.

Do you honestly think mages would have been fighting templars in the streets if they were tasked with keeping the mages safe, rather than aiming to kill them with swords of mercy?

Butting in--I'm fairly certain TJPags objection has to do with you answering something they didn't say.  They asked the question, "what makes the templars think they can contain the mages anyway" and you launched into a defense of the mages as if TJPags had attacked what they were doing.  It reads like you're jumping them for arguing in favor of templar abuse, when all they did was ask a neutral, possibly rhetorical question that had nothing to do with either side of the debate.

[Rifneno]

TJPags wrote...

You know, you may be right, Rifneno.  That could be considered rude, and if so, I apologize to Lob.

That said, if you look back on what started that sequence with Lob and I, you'll see that it had nothing to do with Meredith, abuse of mages, or anything else.  It was a comment regarding mages escaping, not the reasons for it.  The poster I initially responded to said the Templars could have just locked the mages in the Gallows during the end game.  I mentioned that since there was no indication that mages could be kept in the Gallows throughout the game, there's no reason to expect it to be different now.

That has nothing to do with reasons.  If someone says "we should just keep minors from drinking", and I respond that "all efforts to do so in the past have been only of limited success", that has nothing to do with WHY minors drink.

There was no reason for Lob to bring up Templar abuses in response to that discussion.

Ahh.  I thought you meant it in reference to the ongoine general mage/templar debates.  My mistake, sorry.  I really should stop getting involved in them myself.  I love a good lively civil debate, but some aspects of this annoy me until I start snapping at people for no reason.  *sigh*

TobiTobsen wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

But he also calls his research too evil and dangerous to use. So he was interested in necromancy, but presumably not the really heavy stuff.

That's what he tells his "allies" in the mage ending, before he (surprise!) uses it and turns on you. The story is a little bit different in the templar ending, where he gloats about his connection to Quentin and the fact that he supported him and is a "little bit" mad.

I just went through the templar ending with a runscript killallhostiles hotkey and a crate of antiemetics, just to see how he speaks of this issue actually.  He still adamantly claims that he's never used blood magic before the ritual for the Harvester.  When Hawke questions him about Quentin, he says with a regretful tone that he knew of Quentin but he did not report him because Meredith would've used a maleificarum serial killer as an excuse to bring the hammer down on the Circle.  He's completely right about that, IMO.  If Bethany is there then she'll ask, horrified, if Orsino could've saved her mother.  In an even more regretful and sorrowful tone, he apologizes to her and says he didn't learn of Quentin's depravity until it was too late.

Take that as you will.  I think he's being truthful really.  He made mistakes but I don't think Orsino was evil.  And judging by the fact Bethany, who was in the room with him when you enter, is only horrified when she finds out about Quentin it's quite possible he was even telling the truth about the dead mages being willing sacrifices.

[Augustei]

IanPolaris wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

IanPolaris wrote..
Oh bolluxs.  Cullen outright states
that the only reason that Bethany is being taken alive AND you aren't
being killed/imprisoned for harboring he is because the the Viscount's
influence.  That's right from the damned GAME.

Try it yourself and this time go throught ALL the dialog trees. 
If you pick the diplomatic response, Cullen specifically says that it's
the viscount's influence that is keeping her and you alive.

Ok this time I just played this scene and reloaded to see all dialogue options from Diplomatic, Sarcastic and Agressive and Cullen doesn't mention this at all. He only says that because she has cooperated the others will be spared punishment for harboring an apostate. He never mentioned anything to do with the Viscounts influence. I didn't hear anything at all to do with this in the game.

Then You didn't listen becuase he does say it.  The Viscount interferes for you in the case of Bethany.

-Polaris

Edit:  It's possible Cullen mentions it either before the dialog options, or very briefly as the scene closes, but I KNOW I am not imagining it.  Cullen does refer to the Viscount at least once.  I think you missed it (and don't rely on You-Tube).

are you sure he doesn't say it later in the gallows or something? or maybe he says it depending on your Hawkes personality. Cause I cant seem to get him to say it at all in the scene

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 08 mai 2011 - 05:32 .

[The Baconer]

Xilizhra wrote...

Erm, only one blood mage was going on a rampage through the streets. There were a few more in the Gallows, but...

Bloodragers, maleficar that attack you after leaving the de Launcet house...

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It speaks of their trainning, because apparently suicide rate is higher than the death rate from demons. We don't know anything about what the actual rate is. So all we can deduce from what is said, is that the trainnng works, and that some mages buckle under the pressure.

The Circle is about educating mages. That, and containing the threat, is all it have ever been about.

Alot have made the assumption that all, or most, Templars are abusive monsters who live only to make the lifes of mages miserable. That is something to take issue with, as that is clearly misinformed. Another issue is the widespread belief that all mages hate the Circle, which also a blatant inaccuracy.
Fiona may have disliked the Circle, but many other mages seems to prefer it greatly to their previous lives. Pretty much all the named circle mages of DA:O (Uldred being the exception), seemed to prefer the Circle more than any alternative.
Life can be monstrous anywhere, the mages have it no harder than the rest of Thedas, when it comes to the brutality of life.

Wrong.  That the Circle is about educating mages and containing their threat is what the Chantry has claimed they are about in order to justify the institution.  And it may well be true that that's what a lot of Chantry officials believe, and it may even have been true that that was the benign reason for the Circles' creation.  

However, in practice, what the Circles have been about is tearing children away from their families, denying them contact with those families ever again, and treating mages like bombs looking for a village to go off in.  They are about denying mages the right to marry, and about legally taking away any child born to a mage within the Circle.  They are about preaching to mages and non-mages alike that magic is a curse from the Maker--which says a great deal more about the Maker than the mage, if you're going to question what the hell a newborn babe did to be cursed, but religion has never been logical so never mind--and thereby creating a cultural environment that fosters considerable fear and hatred toward mages, which any thinking person is capable of realizing can lead to terrified parents killing their own child upon discovery of their being a mage, or "just" regarding that child with revulsion.

And you're forgetting something crucial.  For all that this benign institution is only about educating mages and containing their threat...quite a lot of mages hate it enough to prefer a life on the run, which puts them at risk of execution, rather than submit to it.  That right there should speak volumes to anyone.  The cage may be gilded, but it's still a cage, and one that apparently doesn't come with enough perks to override a person's basic desire to be free.  The fact that the Ferelden Circle, which is probably one of the better examples of how a Circle is ostensibly meant to operate, contained plenty of mages who didn't find Circle life preferable to freedom, speaks to this.