137 réponses à ce sujet

[Rifneno]

Xewaka wrote...

Nah. They have slaves to sacrifice for the needed ritual blood.
I always find funny how people who argue about the mage freedom conviently forget that the only country that still has legal slavery is run by mages.
Keeping magi in check actually promotes personal freedom for the larger part of the population.

Are you familiar with something called sample size?  For example, let's say a person has only seen one egg in their life.  That egg was brown.  That person now proclaims that all eggs are brown.  You are that person.

It is more likely a cultural difference than anything to do with magic.  New generations teach the old.  It's why someone from, let's say England, will be more likely to have English values, religion, even food preference than those of, say, Japan.  The problem here is basically that Tevinter culture has vastly different morals and teaches that it's okay to abuse power and torment those beneath you.  Other nations in Thedas have a different culture.  There is no reason to believe things would likely wind up the same.  But that's just the kind of fearmongering the Chantry clings to... because it's all they have.

[Bayz]

Yeah most of them (the ones taken while being children as it must have been *looks at Isolde balefully*) don't know any better. They might "desire" to be outside rather than "miss" it, dunno if my babble is clear...

[Aldandil]

Rifneno wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Nah. They have slaves to sacrifice for the needed ritual blood.
I always find funny how people who argue about the mage freedom conviently forget that the only country that still has legal slavery is run by mages.
Keeping magi in check actually promotes personal freedom for the larger part of the population.

Are you familiar with something called sample size?  For example, let's say a person has only seen one egg in their life.  That egg was brown.  That person now proclaims that all eggs are brown.  You are that person.

It is more likely a cultural difference than anything to do with magic.  New generations teach the old.  It's why someone from, let's say England, will be more likely to have English values, religion, even food preference than those of, say, Japan.  The problem here is basically that Tevinter culture has vastly different morals and teaches that it's okay to abuse power and torment those beneath you.  Other nations in Thedas have a different culture.  There is no reason to believe things would likely wind up the same.  But that's just the kind of fearmongering the Chantry clings to... because it's all they have.

Well, aren't you that person too? All the examples we have of cultures where mages aren't controled are a lot more different from Kirkwall/Ferelden than Tevinter. I wouldn't say that there's no reason to believe it would happen, but I think we all agree that it's not a certainty.

[Xewaka]

Rifneno wrote...
Are you familiar with something called sample size?  For example, let's say a person has only seen one egg in their life.  That egg was brown.  That person now proclaims that all eggs are brown.  You are that person.
It is more likely a cultural difference than anything to do with magic.  New generations teach the old.  It's why someone from, let's say England, will be more likely to have English values, religion, even food preference than those of, say, Japan.  The problem here is basically that Tevinter culture has vastly different morals and teaches that it's okay to abuse power and torment those beneath you.  Other nations in Thedas have a different culture.  There is no reason to believe things would likely wind up the same.  But that's just the kind of fearmongering the Chantry clings to... because it's all they have.

Could you please point me to the evidence that shows that an unchecked mage will not end up abusing his/her power, regardless of enviroment?
Oh, and main player characters don't count.

Modifié par Xewaka, 01 avril 2011 - 01:14 .

[LobselVith8]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If people had reasons behind their choice, than they made an informed decision about the matter.

Nonsense. Reasons for a decision can be entirely mis-informed, illogical, and outright fallacies.

Reasons for a decision can also be informed, logical, and factual. If they are, then their reasoning isn't merely a decision made by default. People make informed decisions after learning the facts (essentially informing oneself) about the focus of the decision. If people are making informed decisions on the issues between templars and mages, then they aren't simply choosing mages as the default decision.

[Rifneno]

Aldandil wrote...

Well, aren't you that person too? All the examples we have of cultures where mages aren't controled are a lot more different from Kirkwall/Ferelden than Tevinter. I wouldn't say that there's no reason to believe it would happen, but I think we all agree that it's not a certainty.

I never said it would end up the same or that it would end up differently.  I gave a hypothesis for why I believe it has at least a good chance of ending up differently.  No one can predict the future, and it's always possible people born with power can turn out to be tyrants.  But clearly the "gentle" hand of the Chantry is not working and I don't think they should be allowed to continue their evil because if they don't, then the oppressed might abuse their power.

Oh, and I forgot to answer the original question...  err, you guys remember that the game uploads anonymous data on player choices so they can better learn their audience, right?  I imagine he said that because he's got a chart in front of him that tells him most players sided with the mages at the final battle.

[Unichrone]

BioWare certainly made the element of empathy one-sided, that's for sure. Probably indicative of the philosophy and dare I say theology of the team.

[Bayz]

Another reason to support the mages is that they wear nothing under their tunics *wink wink nudge nudge*

[Aldandil]

Rifneno wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

Well, aren't you that person too? All the examples we have of cultures where mages aren't controled are a lot more different from Kirkwall/Ferelden than Tevinter. I wouldn't say that there's no reason to believe it would happen, but I think we all agree that it's not a certainty.

I never said it would end up the same or that it would end up differently.  I gave a hypothesis for why I believe it has at least a good chance of ending up differently.  No one can predict the future, and it's always possible people born with power can turn out to be tyrants.  But clearly the "gentle" hand of the Chantry is not working and I don't think they should be allowed to continue their evil because if they don't, then the oppressed might abuse their power.

Oh, and I forgot to answer the original question...  err, you guys remember that the game uploads anonymous data on player choices so they can better learn their audience, right?  I imagine he said that because he's got a chart in front of him that tells him most players sided with the mages at the final battle.

True, I see I did "strawman" you a bit. You did say you saw no reason it would end up the same though

[Maria Caliban]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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?

But aren't people making an informed choice then, based on the issues surrounding the division between mages and templars, rather than choosing mages merely as a default option?

No.

[Bayz]

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.
 

So...no export for china I guess?

I'm pretty sure the game went out of the Western World and  that you can agree with mages even coming from a society that doesn't care about personal freedom.

The sympathy bit is quite one sided.

Modifié par Bayz, 01 avril 2011 - 02:05 .

[_Aine_]

 Because with the mages there is a chance you are a decent person (as the mage) and most people can relate with the feeling of persecution, repression etc. at some base level.  And, you have a sister that is a GOOD mage who you get along with so you would be condemning her to death ( if she lives only mind you) Not everyone can relate to the templars as they usually appear as authoritative, reactionist weirdo's on some holy genocidal cause motivated more by fear than by protectionary caution.  

The best summation of the conflict between parties I found here:  "Fighting for them (mages) begins to make blurry sense, and yet fighting against (templars) aligns you with psychopaths who wish to see horrific acts of mental abuse and eugenics."

The game almost, in the end, requires you to make a black or white choice between the possibility of corruption, or the automatic elimination of an entire societal group of humans who may or may not be guilty of the crime that will condemn them ALL to death.   Most (not all, especially when simply role-playing) people let their RL societal ethics influence their action making them perhaps not want to be responsible for genocide when the alternative yes is dangerous, but is more moderate.  Not exactly an "Ooops, I thought I was only getting the bad guys" kind of decision. You know every single mage will die.  Most people, I think anyway, have a problem with extremist action, even for the "right" reasons.  

Modifié par shantisands, 01 avril 2011 - 02:05 .

[ragnarokhela]

It all struck me as being pretty gray, really. There are reasons to empathize with both sides, even if we see abuses from the Templars in Kirkwall. I admit I haven't put much hard thought into matters, but I got the impression that human nature would influence whoever happened to be in control, though I can't say mages having freedom to do as they like would end up in another Tevinter. It's more that each group would have its own number of terrible jackasses who try to further the Mage or Templar agenda (for lack of a better word). People just being people will muck things up, even if the Circle system could stand some revision here and there.

[Bmeszaros]

taking DAO into consideration, I'd side with Mages.

Taking DA2 into consideration, I'd side with the templars. Every mage in DA2, with the exception of Bethany, resorts to consorting with demons, blood magic or evil frankenstien-esque chop jobs. Every Mage at the Gallows would likely lay down their lives to save Orsino, not knowing how evil he really is, but you have several Templars that disagree with Meredith and even come to your defense when you fight her.

While a few templars are over the top (Meredith, Alrik) A vast majority see there duties as what they truly are, a sad burden to the Maker they have the utmost faith in, they realize that even mages are a creation of the maker and thus a creation to be respected. Even Cullen realizes that he is among the so-called "Old Gaurd" of Templar thinking, probably has Gregoir to thank for that.

With Blood Mages and Blood Mage thralls roaming the streets of Kirkwall nightly in DA2's third Act, its clear that the sympathetic party in DA2 is the Templars, the true Templars, not the perverse lengths that Meredith has turned it into.

Simply put, Ultimate Power Corrupts Ultimately. The Viscount was under the Templars thumb, thus being unable to reach this, Meredith essentially had nobody standing in her way.

[Rifneno]

shantisands wrote...

 Because with the mages there is a chance you are a decent person (as the mage) and most people can relate with the feeling of persecution, repression etc. at some base level.  And, you have a sister that is a GOOD mage who you get along with so you would be condemning her to death ( if she lives only mind you) Not everyone can relate to the templars as they usually appear as authoritative, reactionist weirdo's on some holy genocidal cause motivated more by fear than by protectionary caution.  

This is an excellent point.  Many, many people can relate to the abuses that the mages endure.  The one thing that sold it to me was a conversation with Anders where he says "For all the talk of demons, the most common death I saw for a mage was suicide."  I was severely depressed and suicidal until 25 when I found a working treatment.  It is a hell I could not begin to describe, and I would not wish on anyone.  That the templars treat them so badly they get there not because of a chemical imbalance but because of mental and physical abuse is simply unforgivable in my view.  I'm adamantly on the mage side now, and I don't judge Anders a bit for what he does.  But that's just one situation, there's quite a few others.  Most notably of course, is the rape.  There's at least 3 mentions of templars raping helpless mages.  It is, unfortunately, too common a crime in today's society and it's almost more common than not to have either had it happen to you or a close loved one.  I'm sure lots of people were sympathetic towards the mages because they know what that is to endure.

Now let's look at the other side of the coin.  Show of hands, how many people have lost a loved one in real life because a blood mage wanted to use some of their body parts for a patchwork zombie wife?  Nobody?  Yeah, didn't think so.  The crimes committed against mages will trigger reactions from people's real life tragedies.  Crimes committed *by* mages can only be imagined.  There is a world of difference.

[Wynne]

I sided with the Templars.

On my third playthrough.

With great, great wincing pain and a touch of personal shame. I had great trouble sticking to the character I was playing (someone deeply scared of abominations, enraged about Quentin and Anders and Grace, and thinking it was better to put the mages out of their misery.)

While I like Cullen and Thrask and quite a few templars, I can't condone what Meredith wants them to do. Genocide--the murder of human beings whose only crime is to be born as they are--is horribly, horribly wrong no matter what. Even after what Anders--one individual possessed mage--does, even after what Quentin the blood mage did, even after that stupid bastard Orsino who let Quentin do his thing lost his damned mind, even after that stupid evil spoiled brat Grace, the bulk of mages are still frightened innocents constantly threatened with death and several fates worse than death (possession, tranquility, being some templar's sex slave in order to avoid him abusing his power to get them made tranquil). Even the bulk of blood mages and abominations are composed of scared fools who felt their only other options were worse than turning to horrors. It's hard not to sympathize.

The one thing that mages who DON'T succumb to the dark side of magic have in common? Emotional stability. Wynne, Irving, presumably the Amell or Surana who saves the world, Hawke and Hawke's ancestors, Bethany... hell, even Emile de Launcet. He was silly and foolish, but he had a loving mother and father who accepted him as he was.

Mages who aren't condemned for being what they are; mages who aren't treated like monsters, who weren't raped or tortured and aren't monsters innately incapable of understanding morality, like Quentin--they don't turn to the uglier side of magic. And that, in and of itself, is pretty clear proof that the templar system does as much harm as good.

There must always be templars, but not fanatical zealots. Templars like Cullen was, and is at the end of DA2. Not foolish enough to trust the wrong people, like Thrask, but certainly not anything like Meredith either. Templars who respect life and understand balance, who don't assume that magic is a stamp of evil on a human soul; a sign of the Maker's disapproval. Templars whose aim is to protect not only normal people from mages, but mages from each other and themselves. Friends to mages and to humanity in general, not enemies.

I think DG is right; that the vast majority of people see siding with the Templars as they are in DA2 to be a form of genocide. Equivalent to joining the KKK or snuggling up to Hitler. I could hardly stomach doing it at all, and even then I felt sick for doing so.

[LobselVith8]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

I didn't write about what he intended, I addressed what he specifically stated. When I read the Head Writer of the Dragon Age series saying that "people fall on the side of the mages almost by default," Gaider's words read as though no decision was made on the matter to side with the mages, and I wholeheartedly disagree with that assessment. People provided intelligent and well thought out reasons why they didn't believe in the Chantry controlled Circles, or the control of mages by the Order of Templars. It wasn't a default decision, it was a decision armed by seeing both sides of the debate and coming to a conclusion. Default is used to mean automatic by many people (and even many businesses), and I don't see why he'd think people chose mages as a default instead of a decision based on the facts presented in the storyline.

[Dean_the_Young]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If people had reasons behind their choice, than they made an informed decision about the matter.

Nonsense. Reasons for a decision can be entirely mis-informed, illogical, and outright fallacies.

Reasons for a decision can also be informed, logical, and factual. If they are, then their reasoning isn't merely a decision made by default. People make informed decisions after learning the facts (essentially informing oneself) about the focus of the decision.

That doesn't in the least contradict me, or even agree with your own words which I quoted..

If people make an informed choice, it's because their reasoning was informed. Not because they had a reason. which is what you claimed initially: reasons can be misinformed, erronious, or entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.

Example: when given choice in the game, basing your decision off of a roll of a dice. Do you have a reason for making the selection? Sure: the dice came up X. Is your reasoning informed by context, facts, or objective evaluation of the decision itself? Not at all.

If people are making informed decisions on the issues between templars
and mages, then they aren't simply choosing mages as the default
decision.

Since neither David nor anyone else has claimed that people making informed decisions are siding with the mages out of default, why do you continue erecting a strawman argument? If anything, you should be defensive at an imagined slight that he doesn't think many people are making informed decisions in the first place.

[Dean_the_Young]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

I didn't write about what he intended, I addressed what he specifically stated. When I read the Head Writer of the Dragon Age series saying that "people fall on the side of the mages almost by default," Gaider's words read as though no decision was made on the matter to side with the mages, and I wholeheartedly disagree with that assessment. People provided intelligent and well thought out reasons why they didn't believe in the Chantry controlled Circles, or the control of mages by the Order of Templars. It wasn't a default decision, it was a decision armed by seeing both sides of the debate and coming to a conclusion. Default is used to mean automatic by many people (and even many businesses), and I don't see why he'd think people chose mages as a default instead of a decision based on the facts presented in the storyline.

Wait, this entire thread is because you're too butt-hurt to read context as opposed to literalism, and you're butt-hurt in the first place because you insist on interpreting it in the most offensive-to-you-specifically manner possible in a post by a guy who probably doesn't even know you exist?

He wasn't event talking to you, or necessarily about you, and the amount of ego required to insist that he was is staggering given that to be insulted by this you first have to self-categorize yourself into the category he's referring to (people who make default, rather than informed, decisions). That's not Gaider's fault, that's yours.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 01 avril 2011 - 04:00 .

[LobselVith8]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Reasons for a decision can also be informed, logical, and factual. If they are, then their reasoning isn't merely a decision made by default. People make informed decisions after learning the facts (essentially informing oneself) about the focus of the decision.

That doesn't in the least contradict me, or even agree with your own words which I quoted..

If people make an informed choice, it's because their reasoning was informed. Not because they had a reason. which is what you claimed initially: reasons can be misinformed, erronious, or entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.

Actually, what I initially said was that if people are basing their decisions on particular reasons to side with the mages, then it isn't an act made by default. I didn't realize I was supposed to engage in a literary debate with you over the precision of how the American language is written.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Example: when given choice in the game, basing your decision off of a roll of a dice. Do you have a reason for making the selection? Sure: the dice came up X. Is your reasoning informed by context, facts, or objective evaluation of the decision itself? Not at all.

Again, I don't see what this has to do with addressing that if people are making informed decisions about siding with mages, it isn't merely done automatically.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If people are making informed decisions on the issues between templars and mages, then they aren't simply choosing mages as the default decision.

Since neither David nor anyone else has claimed that people making informed decisions are siding with the mages out of default, why do you continue erecting a strawman argument? If anything, you should be defensive at an imagined slight that he doesn't think many people are making informed decisions in the first place.

I addressed what was specifically said by David Gaider, and even used the quote. I'm not certain why you're even addressing me in this thread since you made it clear before that you had no wish to engage with me in dialogue after I mentioned how you attacked someone for having a different opinion than you.

[LobselVith8]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Wait, this entire thread is because you're too butt-hurt to read context as opposed to literalism, and you're butt-hurt in the first place because you insist on interpreting it in the most offensive-to-you-specifically manner possible in a post by a guy who probably doesn't even know you exist?

I didn't think it was a fair statement to say that people sided with mages by default, nor did I even say that he was specifically referring to me personally.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

He wasn't event talking to you, or necessarily about you, and the amount of ego required to insist that he was is staggering given that to be insulted by this you first have to self-categorize yourself into the category he's referring to (people who make default, rather than informed, decisions). That's not Gaider's fault, that's yours.

Again, I never said in the OP that Gaider was addressing me specifically.

[Dean_the_Young]

LobselVith8 wrote...


Again, I never said in the OP that Gaider was addressing me specifically.

No, you just started a thread and spent five pages moaning and ****ing about it.

[LobselVith8]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Again, I never said in the OP that Gaider was addressing me specifically.

No, you just started a thread and spent five pages moaning and ****ing about it.

Isn't that precisely what you're doing right now, Dean?

[Dean_the_Young]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Actually, what I initially said was that if people are basing their decisions on particular reasons to side with the mages, then it isn't an act made by default. I didn't realize I was supposed to engage in a literary debate with you over the precision of how the American language is written.

Then perhaps it's about time you learn how other people in the world talk, hm, rather than insist on taking offense because it doesn't match your vernacular.

Again, I don't see what this has to do with addressing that if people are making informed decisions about siding with mages, it isn't merely done automatically.

Since default, in the way David was using it, doesn't mean automatically... well, you still haven't gotten that either.

I addressed what was specifically said by David Gaider, and even used the quote.

And ignorred the context of Gairder's discussion.

Yes, we've mentioned this.

I'm not certain why you're even addressing me in this thread since you made it clear before that you had no wish to engage with me in dialogue after I mentioned how you attacked someone for having a different opinion than you.

And this is the selective memory and attention about why I stopped arguing on a different topic. Because you completely make **** up instead of actually addressing what people say to you.

[Dean_the_Young]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Again, I never said in the OP that Gaider was addressing me specifically.

No, you just started a thread and spent five pages moaning and ****ing about it.

Isn't that precisely what you're doing right now, Dean?

Starting a thread to spend five pages moaning about someone who wasn't even refering to me?

Uh, no.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 01 avril 2011 - 04:22 .