137 réponses à ce sujet

[Arppis]

Because he thinks that people are ready to do the right thing or are actualy decent. Guess he was wrong.

[Ki_Draken_Magus]

In the Dragon Age world, I don't necessarily have an issue with the way the Circle and Chantry works. The Idea is the Chantry and the Circle are supposed to WORK TOGETHER to teach young mages how to use their powers, resist temptation (demons), and incidentally blood magic. However, since we are talking about men and women running the entire thing it ends up being far, far less than perfect.

As Knight Commander Meredith states, "Tell me a better way, and I will listen.". In both DA:O and DA2 none of my characters (even the mage ones) had any issue chasing down (and removing the threat of ) blood mages and abominations. Even First Enchanter Orsino recognizes the danger apostates pose not only to the Circle but to society at large.

The reason I side with the mages (every time) is Knight Commander Meredith want to commit murder (in the name of the state) against those who are not guilty of any crime, and would have joined forces with her if they had the opportunity to prevent the crime.

I didn't join the mages out of sympathy for their plight, I joined because I felt the Knight Commander was dead wrong with a capital W.

If you have an ingrown toenail, you cut off the toenail....not the entire foot.

[upsettingshorts]

Arppis wrote...

Because he thinks that people are ready to do the right thing or are actualy decent. Guess he was wrong.

I'll just point out that posts like this are pretty much the kind I was talking about when I made that statement and DG agreed with me.

Whether or not he was thinking of the same posts would be for him to say.

[Khayness]

ZombiePowered wrote...

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.

If the restriction of freedom serves the common good then I'm all up for it.

That's why I roleplayed a Libertarian Mage Warden in DA:O.

The mages don't want to be prosecuted/lynched by the people, they don't want maleficars and abominations, so let them handle their own problems.

Fenris' example about the Tevinter Circle taking over is bad, since the other Circles (well, that few we know of) don't have the cultural base of mages ruling, they are used to being feared and hunted down, so they'd probably just want to be in peace.

[Sherbet Lemon]

Khayness wrote...

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.

Which is what so many people wanted (in general).  No third option.  I'm not saying you did or arguing with you anything.  I am just arguing that people wanted an a or b choice. 

We still don't know what effect choosing one side or the other will have.  It will be interesting to see what comes of it.

[Herr Uhl]

There is an institution that oppresses some people for being gifted beyond normal people.

Given no more information than that, I'd be surprised if anyone would side with the oppressors.

[Khayness]

Village Idiot wrote...

Which is what so many people wanted (in general).  No third option.  I'm not saying you did or arguing with you anything.  I am just arguing that people wanted an a or b choice. 

We still don't know what effect choosing one side or the other will have.  It will be interesting to see what comes of it.

Orisino still turns into a blob, and Meredith goes SSJ4, the whole world is on fire, no thanks to your personal actions (pretty sure the expedition would have been a launched sooner or later).

Going in for your sibling wouldn't really change that fact if picking sides didn't either.

Modifié par Khayness, 31 mars 2011 - 07:06 .

[Addai]

Some of us play mages as player characters, so there's a natural empathy there that's hard to overcome. DA2 did a good job of showing the flip side.

[LobselVith8]

Weskerr wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

I wrote the OP because I know that David Gaider has responded to templar and mage threads where this issue was addressed, and both sides provided reasons and arguments for why they sided with the mages or with the templars. Saying people sided with the mages as a default choice infers that it's automatically made, rather than an informed choice based on information. I found it to be an inaccurate statement.

Weskerr wrote...

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.

But people and businesses do frequently use the term default to mean "automatic." If people are basing their decisions by being armed with knowledge, I don't see it as the automatic choice. That's essentially what I was trying to get at with the OP.

[Pileyourbodies]

Easy most people on the forums seem to be anti religion and support the right of oppressed people. I myself lack faith and support the rights of oppressed people, I supported mages in DA:O because well we didn't see as many insane blood mages and we delt with an entire country, here every 3rd person was a blood mage and I saw why the templars are needed and how the mages need to be oppressed. Basically Quinten killing Leandra put me into the fenris mindset, nothing magic touches is good.

[Wulfram]

If you're going in for Bethany then you've picked the Mage side, pretty much.  Templar Carver wouldn't want to be "rescued", so the only way to protect him would be to pick the Templar side.  So I'm not seeing this as a third option.

[Beerfish]

Herr Uhl wrote...

There is an institution that oppresses some people for being gifted beyond normal people.

Given no more information than that, I'd be surprised if anyone would side with the oppressors.

But we are given more information than that, much much more information all through DAO and of course DA2 takes it to a whole new level.  The dangers of unregualted mages are talked about early in DAO and then mulitple incidents totally backs up the premise that they are a danger.  Who is to blame for them being a danger is up for debate but they are hardly just gifted people.

[Herr Uhl]

Beerfish wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

There is an institution that oppresses some people for being gifted beyond normal people.

Given no more information than that, I'd be surprised if anyone would side with the oppressors.

But we are given more information than that, much much more information all through DAO and of course DA2 takes it to a whole new level.  The dangers of unregualted mages are talked about early in DAO and then mulitple incidents totally backs up the premise that they are a danger.  Who is to blame for them being a danger is up for debate but they are hardly just gifted people.

Yes. But that is why most people will side with the mages by default. You have to be convinced that the oppression is just, not the opposite.

[Addai]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I wrote the OP because I know that David Gaider has responded to templar and mage threads where this issue was addressed, and both sides provided reasons and arguments for why they sided with the mages or with the templars. Saying people sided with the mages as a default choice infers that it's automatically made, rather than an informed choice based on information. I found it to be an inaccurate statement.

I would agree that the templar siders are a minority, having participated in those threads myself.  There are people who argue the templar side and do so strenuously, but they're usually a lone voice here or there.

I imagine the thread title is perceived as angry because there have been so many troll threads calling the devs out by name.  It's.. a bit confrontational.  I know I would be sick of seeing my name in thread topics on everything under the sun.

[upsettingshorts]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Saying people sided with the mages as a default choice infers that it's automatically made, rather than an informed choice based on information. I found it to be an inaccurate statement.

Thats not what he or I meant, but if you want to strip out all the context and ignore my explanations go right ahead.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

Maria Caliban wrote...

David thinks that people fall on the side of mages by default because they do. We live in a society that values personal freedom.

The Templars are the militant wing of a large, powerful religious origination. Mages are individuals who are taken from their families at an early age, locked-up, and feared by the regular populous all because of an accident of birth.

Gee, who's going to have the audience's sympathy in this situation?

We also live in a society that doesn't have children capable of being possessed by demons and leveling a city block.

Lock them up.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

Also, if a Templar betrays you he'll most likely stab you in the front.

[ZombiePowered]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

There is an institution that oppresses some people for being gifted beyond normal people.

Given no more information than that, I'd be surprised if anyone would side with the oppressors.

But we are given more information than that, much much more information all through DAO and of course DA2 takes it to a whole new level.  The dangers of unregualted mages are talked about early in DAO and then mulitple incidents totally backs up the premise that they are a danger.  Who is to blame for them being a danger is up for debate but they are hardly just gifted people.

Yes. But that is why most people will side with the mages by default. You have to be convinced that the oppression is just, not the opposite.

The oppression is quite just. Yes, these are people. Yes, not all purposely seek to abuse those without magical ability. But all of them are at risk of becoming possessed and turning into mass-murdering machines whenever they have a moment of weakness. If that doesn't justify locking them up in a controlled, isolated fortress, I don't know what does.

That said, the mages are also a great asset to Thedas. They Exalted Marches only managed to push the Qunari back because they countered their advanced technology with magic. Thus, there is a line that needs to be walked. Mages need to be watched because they can become a great danger to all those around, but they need to be given enough room to breathe so they can continue developing arcane knowledge to give Thedas the edge it needs to resist future Qunari invasions. The Circle system is a good idea, it just needs to be executed in a more balanced, intelligent fashion.

[TheOrtReport]

Well, he's right, before DA2 came out there were tons of threads regarding mages vs templers.  The vast majority of people sided with the mages.  I remember there was a thread about which side people would be on in DA2, shocker, almost everyone posted about being on the mages side and crushing the chantry.

In Dragon Age Origins, there really wasn't much of a sympathetic side for the templers, players mostly saw the plight of the mages.  Using this and our value of personal freedom, it's pretty obvious what the majority of people would choose.

[Kelleth]

Up until most of DA2 I was "Woohoo, go mages! lets win!" but after awhile and 50 Blood Mages later I was like "... Screw you guys! Go Templars!"

[Lithuasil]

Hawke comes from a mage family, has mage friends, might be a mage. The entire point of the first act is to protect the family-mages freedom.

And much more importantly (imho, that's why quentin was there) - the whole thing of mages going bad is a problem for peasants. Literally. Even that whole Connor incident got ignored by the majority of players in the debate, because the player (in origins, anyway) never really felt as part of the world. And I think it's safe to assume, at least a good 90% of the players, when facing a moral dilemma in a game, decide based on their own, *special* status, and care little for the plight of the common folk.

[Pileyourbodies]

Lithuasil wrote...

Hawke comes from a mage family, has mage friends, might be a mage. The entire point of the first act is to protect the family-mages freedom.

And much more importantly (imho, that's why quentin was there) - the whole thing of mages going bad is a problem for peasants. Literally. Even that whole Connor incident got ignored by the majority of players in the debate, because the player (in origins, anyway) never really felt as part of the world. And I think it's safe to assume, at least a good 90% of the players, when facing a moral dilemma in a game, decide based on their own, *special* status, and care little for the plight of the common folk.

I think that reason there is a perfect summary and you're a crazed mage supporter . This reason is why i think they had a mage kill your mother.

[Arppis]

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

Also, if a Templar betrays you he'll most likely stab you in the front.

Something I can respect.

[CaisLaochach]

Templars are brutal and cruel. Their rule resembles an autocratic theocracy, with mages constantly living under the threat of death.

The Templars frequently abuse their position of power.

Mages are mistreated appallingly, and as such, most people sympathise. I sided with the mages, for this very reason.

The obvious counter is the sheer number (and let's ignore the rather idiotic numbers) who become blood mages, abominations, etc. That's why the world needs Templars. But I still prefer mages.

[Arppis]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Because he thinks that people are ready to do the right thing or are actualy decent. Guess he was wrong.

I'll just point out that posts like this are pretty much the kind I was talking about when I made that statement and DG agreed with me.

Whether or not he was thinking of the same posts would be for him to say.

Which statement? You mean about individual freedoms influencing our decissions in the game? Or was it on other topic?