137 réponses à ce sujet

[SSGv2]

I didn't want to take sides >.< But in the end i took the side of the mages, just because Hawke's sister was in the circle.

[Xewaka]

He thinks so because Origins was heavily pro-mage, and people come defaulted to that.

[LadyJaneGrey]

Valentia X wrote...

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

Now that the game is actually out, I wonder how many people fall into the "both sides are wrong; why try to blast the other side?" category...

I think neither is wrong or right, and Kirkwall isn't the example to use because it's taken to extremes. Not all knight-commanders are like Meredith- but then, not all knight-commanders are like Gregoir, either. 

Personally, I support a system of checks and balances. Mages and templars check and balance one another. As my good if somewhat smartass Hawke says, there has to be a better way. The current system is filled with generally good people stuck in a relic of what used to work and what used to be tolerable. There need to be an overhaul.

I should have been clearer.  What I meant was I wondered if some of the most vocal supporters of one side or the other modified their opinions after playing Dragon Age II. 

And I'm with you on reforming the current system...hopefully based in a location that is not Demonspawnville.

[Maleficent]

Yeah you're reading too much into that and plus one of the classes we play is mage and one of the most popular at that.

[Lord Gremlin]

I support the mages... Unless given option to support the Qun. In latter case mages are put on leashes for the greater good and stable economy.
You don't want to know what happens when a hunger demon possesses a cookie.

[LobselVith8]

Weskerr wrote...

You're reading too much into it and being overly sensative because of that. Besides, doesn't this seem like something that's silly to be angry about, even if it were true?

Why do you think I'm angry? All I did was openly ask why David Gaider would think people sided with mages by default, since I know he's responded to templar and mage threads. I didn't think it was an accurate statement to make if people are making an informed decision between templars and mages. If you think I'm mistaken, I'm curious to hear why.

[upsettingshorts]

You can make an informed decision and side with the mages, that wasn't the point of the discussion. Since he was responding to me there I think I'm in a good position to elaborate.

The point is we're all products of the world we live in. We view things through that point of view. And the world most of us here live in is the Western one, and we all live in modern times. We had our liberal humanist revolutions. A few of them, some violent, some intellectual, some both. They were informed decisions, too.

The reason challenging this is necessary is because the writers wanted to encourage the player to make a decision based upon the world of Thedas, so they hit the player with all kinds of examples of various ways in which mages help and harm society, and the same with reasonable Templars and total zealots. They piled so much context on the player that they more or less had to make a lore based decision.

That doesn't rule out making an informed decision based upon the lore and siding with the mages (or Templars) it just means that without proper context and information, modern Western individuals are doing to side with the cause of individual freedom, especially in a case where there are no real stakes - eg, our own personal safety is not in danger.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 31 mars 2011 - 06:18 .

[Eollodwyn]

noxsachi wrote...

I was a pretty big supporter of the mages like I was in DA:O but I don't think total abolition of the Circle system is the right idea, rather reform is. Thats a big reason I always side with the templars at the end of DAII. The biggest fault of their reaction to the pro-mage bias was that they assumed that everyone would love the mages going into DAII and so they didn't feel the need to implement a good mage aside from Hawke and Bethany. I mean even your mage companions are insane at the very best. There is no Cullen or Thrask for the mages, which is in my eyes a really big problem for the finale.

This was kind of a big issue for me.  I appreciate what they were trying to do, but they were constantly bludgeoning us over the head with the whole "MAGEZ R BAD!!" schtick, instead of showing us the good and bad in both.  As much as I loved Anders and Merrill, they can't be the only characters to represent the "good" mages, for some obvious reasons.  I think they were assuming too much of a pro-mage bias, and ended up overcompensating.


That said, this game only made me even more pro-mage (and that's saying something), so...maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

[Beerfish]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

You're reading too much into it and being overly sensative because of that. Besides, doesn't this seem like something that's silly to be angry about, even if it were true?

Why do you think I'm angry? All I did was openly ask why David Gaider would think people sided with mages by default, since I know he's responded to templar and mage threads. I didn't think it was an accurate statement to make if people are making an informed decision between templars and mages. If you think I'm mistaken, I'm curious to hear why.

Once again, go  back and read those various long threads where you and a few others were debating myself and a few others.  By far the majority of short posts made by people were "Mages should be free I hate the Templars and Chantry."  Pretty easy to see where he made his deduction from, not to mention posts after DA2 as well.  By far a majority are pro mage.  (I do hope to convert them all though.    )

Modifié par Beerfish, 31 mars 2011 - 06:23 .

[Khayness]

Bad writing in DA2 made me an even more avid mage supporter.

Bad mages were blessed with Plot Induced Stupidity (Grace, so much) or they were just plain mad (Quentin), their deeds had nothing to do with them being mages.

Thank you Mr. Gaider.

[Beerfish]

Khayness wrote...

Bad writing in DA2 made me an even more avid mage supporter.

Bad mages were blessed with Plot Induced Stupidity (Grace, so much) or they were just plain mad (Quentin), their deeds had nothing to do with them being mages.

Thank you Mr. Gaider.

lol you were a mage supporter so you conveniently seize on bad mage behaviour and say it is bad writing, while totally ignoring the Templars?

[Khayness]

Beerfish wrote...

lol you were a mage supporter so you conveniently seize on bad mage behaviour and say it is bad writing, while totally ignoring the Templars?

Don't even let me start on the Templars. That Idol twist was awful.

The whole plot in DA2 proves us that men are indeed fallible, nothing about factions, right or wrong.

[upsettingshorts]

Khayness wrote...

The whole plot in DA2 proves us that men are indeed fallible, nothing about factions, right or wrong.

Seems like it's working as intended, then.  I think DA2's story would be weakened by an implicit or explicit endorsement of either side. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 31 mars 2011 - 06:29 .

[Khayness]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Seems like it's working as intended, then.  I think DA2's story would be weakened by an implicit or explicit endorsement of either side.

Yet you can't take a third option. -> Screw you all, I'm just here for my sister/brother.

Modifié par Khayness, 31 mars 2011 - 06:31 .

[highcastle]

I think Gaider's assumption was fair to make. In the Western world at least, we tend to value freedom above all else. Count how many times it gets used a buzz word for politicians, particularly in times of word. Most people don't like the idea of slavery or oppression. The mages come across as oppressed, the templars as intolerant. Then there are the connotations the word "templar" has attached to it. It's not surprising to think most people or at least many people would be on the side of the oppressed, sticking it to the man fighting against slavers and zealots.

The complications arise when we play the game and see each side is not precisely what it appears to be. While some mages, like Alain and Feynriel, seem to be genuinely decent people just struggling to survive, there are others who are more corrupt. And the potential for possession and the devastation it brings is always there. On the opposite side, we see monsters and rapists like Alrik alongside such templars as Thrask, who seems to really want protection and safety for his charges.

I think Gaider's point was that if you heard just the broad strokes of the conflict--templars are imprisoning, beating, raping, and mind-raping their charges--you would probably side with the mages by default. Only when you examine the conflict more closely to you perhaps reconsider your stance.

Although for me personally, while the conflict became grayer, I can't bring myself to side with Meredith. She wants to kill the entire circle for something a mage outside its control did. That makes no sense (I've likened it in the past to the villain who's lieutenant fails him, so he shoots some random mook instead; it's illogical).

[upsettingshorts]

Khayness wrote...

Yet you can't take a third option.

No you can't, because Anders' succeeded.

[Beerfish]

Khayness wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

lol you were a mage supporter so you conveniently seize on bad mage behaviour and say it is bad writing, while totally ignoring the Templars?

Don't even let me start on the Templars. That Idol twist was awful.

The whole plot in DA2 proves us that men are indeed fallible, nothing about factions, right or wrong.

I don't dispute that the bizarre actions of both main mage/templar was unecessary, they could have even had the same boss fights but developed in a slightly different way.  They had already built up enough pro and con to each group at that point to make the decision at least something a person has to think about.

As I indicated in my post however I do take issue with your 1st post, as if the mages alone were hard done by.  It sounds like you were  big mage supporter and disliked the balance being shifted more into the middle.

[LobselVith8]

Beerfish wrote...

Once again, go  back and read those various long threads where you and a few others were debating myself and a few others.  By far the majority of short posts made by people were "Mages should be free I hate the Templars and Chantry." 

I remember the threads in which people explained their reasoning behind their choices for siding with the mages over the templars and the Chantry, and even offered alternatives to the Chantry controlled Circles.

Beerfish wrote...

Pretty easy to see where he made his deduction from, not to mention posts after DA2 as well.  By far a majority are pro mage.  (I do hope to convert them all though.    )

But Gaider made a comment that says people sided with mages mostly by default, and I think the truth is more nuanced than that. If people had reasons behind their choice, than they made an informed decision about the matter.

[Khayness]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

No you can't, because Anders' succeeded.

Still, you have to pick sides in the final conflict.

Getting Bethany out of the Circle or Carver from the Templars should have been a choice for motivation aswell, which fits the personal story mantra they were aiming for perfectly.

Shame they offed your family in Act 2 totally, it had potential.

Modifié par Khayness, 31 mars 2011 - 06:36 .

[LobselVith8]

Beerfish wrote...

Khayness wrote...

Bad writing in DA2 made me an even more avid mage supporter.

Bad mages were blessed with Plot Induced Stupidity (Grace, so much) or they were just plain mad (Quentin), their deeds had nothing to do with them being mages.

Thank you Mr. Gaider.

lol you were a mage supporter so you conveniently seize on bad mage behaviour and say it is bad writing, while totally ignoring the Templars?

I think Khayness is talking about how mages are trying to kill you for being a Meredith supporter even when you're an apostate who protected fellow apostates Anders and Merrill from templar persecution and publicly denounced Meredith by siding with First Enchanter Orsino. Not to mention how we got the "recycled" nemesis of the Harvester when Orsino lost his mind. The linear progression of the story didn't really help give a sense that the world was reacting to the choices you made.

[Khayness]

Beerfish wrote...

It sounds like you were  big mage supporter and disliked the balance being shifted more into the middle.

The balance shifted to the middle in a stupid way.

The only good example for magic being the cause of suffering was the Tevinter mages sideplot. But it had nothing to do with the Act 3 conflict whatsoever.

[ZombiePowered]

Mages suck. Only Hawke can be trusted to keep from ****ting his pants in demon-luring terror every time someone goes rifling through his stuff.

In all seriousness, though, most of us come from Western culture where "freedom" is valued far above the greater good of the community. It is for the better than mages are locked up, but most Westerners are against it purely on principle.

I thought it was nice that Bioware showed how mages really do go bad when pushed into a corner--the circle incident in Ferelden should've showed this better, but I never knew any of the mages before-hand so I felt detached from the fact that they had become demon-possessed homicidal abominations.

Modifié par ZombiePowered, 31 mars 2011 - 06:46 .

[Wulfram]

I agree that people would tend to have an initial inclination to side with the mages, and I can see why they added a variety of things to help justify siding with the Templars.
What I don't understand is why they then made the actual decision of who to side with be so one sided, with the Templars deciding to kill all the circle because of something they had nothing to do with. It would have been better if there'd been a few less crazy evil mages, but given the circle more culpability in causing the final battle.

By the way, Emile de Launcey isn't evil. Hopefully being a dangerous apostate who defied the templars at the side of the Champion will impress the girls.

[Weskerr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

You're reading too much into it and being overly sensative because of that. Besides, doesn't this seem like something that's silly to be angry about, even if it were true?

Why do you think I'm angry? All I did was openly ask why David Gaider would think people sided with mages by default, since I know he's responded to templar and mage threads. I didn't think it was an accurate statement to make if people are making an informed decision between templars and mages. If you think I'm mistaken, I'm curious to hear why.

Annoyed then? Exasperated? Maybe angry wasn't the right word. Anyway, Gaider's saying what he said does not preclude the possibility that he did, indeed, believe that the reasons some people support Mages were well thought out. In fact, the two don't have to be connected. If he thinks most people, by default, sided with the mages even before the game came out, then he must have a reason for thinking that. Maybe some of the reasons that players provided for siding with the mages after the game came out were what he expected to hear as reasons. My point is that you shouldn't believe that Gaider is ignoring these posters simply because he already thought that most people would have already sided with the mages by default. "By default" doesn't imply that people are choosing sides through instict or without reasons. So, it is neither an accurate or innacurate statement.

[Khayness]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I think Khayness is talking about how mages are trying to kill you for being a Meredith supporter even when you're an apostate who protected fellow apostates Anders and Merrill from templar persecution and publicly denounced Meredith by siding with First Enchanter Orsino. Not to mention how we got the "recycled" nemesis of the Harvester when Orsino lost his mind. The linear progression of the story didn't really help give a sense that the world was reacting to the choices you made.

Yes, the Best Served Cold questline was awful.

I was looking forward to meet the la resitance and help them, but as a known mage supporter I had to press buttons until they turned into something awesome.

It didn't make me mad at the mages and made me ignore their pleas, because the whole story made no sense.