1927 réponses à ce sujet

[Teramore]

• [quote]Lizardviking wrote...

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...

[quote]Lizardviking wrote...
We should have also seen mages who use the chaos and anarchy as an excuse to unleash whatever sadistic powers they have. And templars who are struggling and getting torn apart by them.
[/quote]

We saw a blood mage killing hisw wife for no reason. We saw the imbecile Grace killing her own allies because she misses her ********** husband too much (and probably hasn't had sex for a very long time).  We see crazy mages all over the place.

We needed some moderate mage we could identify with. Or two.

[/quote]

We have Bethany Don't we? She is a younger and more feminine version of Wynne.

Modifié par Teramore, 03 avril 2011 - 11:04 .

[The Angry One]

Camenae wrote...

Well, not like I said Grace came about her decision with calm and sound reasoning and I fully support her! Just saying in terms of feeling bad about losing someone she loves, I can see how that happened. She was crazy no question. But I think losing someone you love will hurt no matter why you lost them or if other people found them lovable or not. And people can and often do react to emotional pain in irrational ways.

Don't misunderstand me in the unique way that the Internet does, lol. Feeling bad for Grace's bereavement =/= agreeing with her actions.

I know I'm just saying it's silly how she places blame on you and spends 6 damn years brooding over this and how to get back at Hawke.
It just makes her another in a long list of unreasonable mages.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Angry One wrote...

In my opinion if Thrask had to die then he should've been killed by Templars for being a "robe lover".
Perhaps even having a mage (like a non-imbecilic Grace) trying to save him.

I don't mind Thrask being killed by a mage fanatic. But at least make the fanatic more reasonable. Possibly killing him over a misunderstanding.

Give me reasons to sympathize with both factions. 

[ddv.rsa]

stobie wrote...

Or maybe they should be more selective when deciding with whom to side, whether mage or not?

I agree. But how does one be more selective about which mages to side with? Orsino, Grace, Gascard DuPuis, and even Alain all seemed like perfectly reasonable people at first glance. But in the end they were all maleficarum.

[The Angry One]

ddv.rsa wrote...

stobie wrote...

Or maybe they should be more selective when deciding with whom to side, whether mage or not?

I agree. But how does one be more selective about which mages to side with? Orsino, Grace, Gascard DuPuis, and even Alain all seemed like perfectly reasonable people at first glance. But in the end they were all maleficarum.

Well Alain may have been pressured into it, and he's at least Jowan-level anyway.
The others, yeah, completely off their heads.

[Lithuasil]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

In my opinion if Thrask had to die then he should've been killed by Templars for being a "robe lover".
Perhaps even having a mage (like a non-imbecilic Grace) trying to save him.

I don't mind Thrask being killed by a mage fanatic. But at least make the fanatic more reasonable. Possibly killing him over a misunderstanding.

Give me reasons to sympathize with both factions. 

Thing is, we start of pretty biased in favor of mages, and Bioware doesn't expect people to view the conflict from a sound roleplaying perspective. 

[stobie]

I'm not sure it has to be all or nothing, though. You treat someone well until they prove they deserve otherwise. Grace & Gascard seem bad to me - I know I didn't want to side with either on my first run through. (and I just killed him.) Alain & Orsino still don't seem bad to me - just not terribly strong, so depending on what happened around them, they might remain good people for the rest of their lives.

I'm not sure how I feel about being a blood mage, anyway. First of all, *you* can be one, and as someone - Merrill - says, it depends on how you use it. Just as it depends on whose head you lop off with a sword. (as I remember, it was always my blood I used - I never used that 'sacrifice companion' spell, that was just too creepy.)


I just think people should be judged by their actions, not by their blood, race, type, etc, and however safer it might seem to stop them before they do something, that just feels fundamentally wrong. I, being extremely right brained, don't see the mages as particularly terrifying. I see the controlling chantry/templars as an absolute horror, however. I can *reason* that they're ok, but I don't feel it. Personally, I think this game has cleverly tapped into something very real - the extremes of our own personality types, & our own fears. Clever - and shows you who to stay away from, which on the internet, is pretty safe.

[Paeyne]

AlexXIV wrote...

In our legal system everyone is innocent unless proven otherwise. Don't know about yours. But if yours is anyhow close to ours, then why do you even object with Polaris? No proof means innocence in legal terms. You can't base judgement based on a feeling or an idea. Even if the most experienced and successful police officer says that he is 100% sure that the culprit is guilty ... if he does not have a proof then no court in the civilized world will take it as any sort of evidence.

I can point to a huge number of cases in US history where innocent unless proven otherwise has been tossed completely out the window, but the conversation is not really about the legal system.

My objection with Polaris' post (I have no objection with Polaris personally) is that it was a fallacious statement.

Polaris purported that because there was no evidence of a conspiracy, it proved that there was no conspiracy.

By that logic, the absence of any evidence of viruses a century or so ago was proof that they did not exist.  (An argument that several esteemed and completely wrong Doctors put forth quite vigorously).

I am not saying there was or was not a conspiracy in the Circle.   I am saying that you cannot prove something with an absence of proof.

Modifié par Paeyne, 03 avril 2011 - 11:16 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Lithuasil wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

In my opinion if Thrask had to die then he should've been killed by Templars for being a "robe lover".
Perhaps even having a mage (like a non-imbecilic Grace) trying to save him.

I don't mind Thrask being killed by a mage fanatic. But at least make the fanatic more reasonable. Possibly killing him over a misunderstanding.

Give me reasons to sympathize with both factions. 

Thing is, we start of pretty biased in favor of mages, and Bioware doesn't expect people to view the conflict from a sound roleplaying perspective. 

I understand that, but what they did was poorly executed overkill imo.

I am not a big fan of the system, but I did want Biwoare to show us that it;s not as simple as "mages are poor oppressed miserable people with no rights!". But what they did now was "all mages are crazed lunatics or idiots. A bomb waiting to explode. Here, have a lot of demons and abominations in the mix to prove out point".

I think Origins handled it much better,  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 avril 2011 - 11:16 .

[stobie]

Lithuasil wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

In my opinion if Thrask had to die then he should've been killed by Templars for being a "robe lover".
Perhaps even having a mage (like a non-imbecilic Grace) trying to save him.

I don't mind Thrask being killed by a mage fanatic. But at least make the fanatic more reasonable. Possibly killing him over a misunderstanding.

Give me reasons to sympathize with both factions. 

Thing is, we start of pretty biased in favor of mages, and Bioware doesn't expect people to view the conflict from a sound roleplaying perspective. 

So, presumably, if you start out siding with the templars, & taking the templar line of quests, you'd have more reason to sympathize with them?   That's what I've assumed, anyway - I couldn't *do* it, but it seems like this game backs up your perceptions for the most part, rather than challenging them.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Teramore wrote..
We have Bethany Don't we? She is a younger and more feminine version of Wynne.

Yes. We have Bethany (possible dead or not in the circle), Alain and that french guy who wanted to have sex.

Compare that to all the mages who are either evil or just bat**** insane, which is basicly everyone.

Also i'm excluding Merrill from this because she does not really count.

[Lithuasil]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I think Origins handled it much better,  

Origins had "save the circle" as an obvious 'good' solution, and left like 95% of the people blatantly ignoring Connor, and paroling mage freedom. Technically, between connor and Origins cullen, I agree there were good glimpses here, but people didn't take the hint, because they watch the conflict as themselves, not through the eyes of a Tedas peasant. 
Bioware tried to get the point across subtely (by lighting a village on fire). People didn't take the hint (the majority anyway), so now it's blood magic ho.

[The Angry One]

stobie wrote...

So, presumably, if you start out siding with the templars, & taking the templar line of quests, you'd have more reason to sympathize with them?   That's what I've assumed, anyway - I couldn't *do* it, but it seems like this game backs up your perceptions for the most part, rather than challenging them.

Not really. You get to hear yet more complaints from Grace and things like that but in pans out pretty much the same, only Hawke taking a different stance.
Oh and you end up sounding silly.. "I'm Hawke and I think all mages must be contained and controlled! By the way, these are my companions, my apostate sister, Merril the blood mage and Anders the abomination."

[KnightofPhoenix]

Lithuasil wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I think Origins handled it much better,  

Origins had "save the circle" as an obvious 'good' solution, and left like 95% of the people blatantly ignoring Connor, and paroling mage freedom. Technically, between connor and Origins cullen, I agree there were good glimpses here, but people didn't take the hint, because they watch the conflict as themselves, not through the eyes of a Tedas peasant. 
Bioware tried to get the point across subtely (by lighting a village on fire). People didn't take the hint (the majority anyway), so now it's blood magic ho.

If we are going to clumsily force an idea because the majority can't understand nuance, then subtetly would no longer exist.

I understand what they were trying to do. I think the execution was not good. It took away a lot of nuance and conflict and turned it a bit ridiculous. Sometimes, I wonder if the whole point is just adding fights at every occasion they can.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 avril 2011 - 11:24 .

[ddv.rsa]

I don't know. Lots of people here support unconditional mage freedom. But if I try to imagine mages existing in the real, modern day world, I don't think I'd be comfortable living and working side by side with them. You could be in your home, minding your own business, when your neighbor who is a mage gets possessed and destroys the entire block. Your family, your friends, your property - all gone, through no fault of your own. Or what about a mage child becoming possessed at school, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of kids? Not to say anything of the abuses blood mages with mind controlling abilities could get away with.

Sure, people will say "train them, then it'll be fine!". Great, except that even First Enchanters have fallen prey to possession by demons. People would be sympathetic at first, but after a few tragic incidents I think we'd implement a system similar to the circle. Maybe even outright witch hunts.

[Lithuasil]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I understand what they were trying to do. I think the execution was not good. It took away a lot of nuance and conflict and turned it a bit ridiculous. Sometimes, I wonder if the whole point is just adding fights at every occasion they can.

Well, that's another problem. Somewhere (I've been trying to root that out, all my life) the false notion was spawned, that "roleplaying" equals "building up stats and killing stuff with those awesome stats". That's why today we have rpgs that have combat, and a bit of dialogue, when the gameplay should be "roleplaying by various means, one of which happens to be combat".

[ddv.rsa]

stobie wrote...

I'm not sure how I feel about being a blood mage, anyway. First of all, *you* can be one, and as someone - Merrill - says, it depends on how you use it. Just as it depends on whose head you lop off with a sword. (as I remember, it was always my blood I used - I never used that 'sacrifice companion' spell, that was just too creepy.)

An interesting trend to note in DA is everything blood magic touches it destroys and corrupts. Just look at Merrill, who started out with the best of intentions.

[Foolsfolly]

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Hawke, for another, can use the terms servitude and slavery to describe the Chantry controlled Circle.

Fair enough. And that means what, precisely, other than that Hawke-- who has never been part of the Circle-- has an opinion?

THANK YOU!!!

There's too many people on these boards and others around the net that just take what some characters say at face value. They don't ever try to filter it through the character's personal biases first.

Thank you for saying that.

[_Aine_]

By the end I wanted to steal a ship and go get the Qunari to come back and raze the place to the ground. Everyone was insane or bat-$%^& insane. They either were happy-go-lucky innocent "oh dear, was that blood magic I just used? It was my first time, I swear it. teehee" or "upstanding" mages who would resort to blood magic the second something didn't go their way. MOST of the templars were categorically genocidal-deviants more out to rid the world of mages in general as opposed to protecting people from the *dangers* of mage abilities gone wrong.

My Hawke really was sick of it all by the end. Everyone had an opinion or some festering wound they couldn't get past and nobody had even a modicum of accountability or responsibility for themselves and their choices on how to deal with their circumstances.

Seriously, the further out of Ferelden you get the crazier everyone got. And they feared the BLIGHT?  They should have looked a bit closer to home, namely at themselves.

Modifié par shantisands, 03 avril 2011 - 11:53 .

[stobie]

ddv.rsa wrote...

stobie wrote...

I'm not sure how I feel about being a blood mage, anyway. First of all, *you* can be one, and as someone - Merrill - says, it depends on how you use it. Just as it depends on whose head you lop off with a sword. (as I remember, it was always my blood I used - I never used that 'sacrifice companion' spell, that was just too creepy.)

An interesting trend to note in DA is everything blood magic touches it destroys and corrupts. Just look at Merrill, who started out with the best of intentions.

It destroyed & corrupted itself to me, because once I got blood magic, I found my mage boring, & finally respecced her out of it...  My Hawke mage doesn't touch it.  Merrill - a lot went wrong for her, definitely.  I wish my character had been able to say, 'you weren't listening' in something *other* than a raging witch way.  (Isabella does a great job)  I adored the Keeper, but you either stand behind Merrill utterly or become a complete jerk to her.  

[Anarcala]

Okay so I'm just gonna get my spoon out and do a little s**t stirring, but there's a neat discussion going on in the Anders thread (companions & NPC's) that shows Meredith had already sent for the Rite of Annulment before Anders blew up the Chantry.

My point is this...does his act now seem more justified given:
a) Meredith was almost openly planning mass murder without necessity
Elthina (via official or unofficial channels) would have known the rite had been sent for...and did nothing

(Apologies if this has already been covered)

[tmp7704]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

We needed some moderate mage we could identify with. Or two.

I think Jesus Hawke makes good role model, for both mages and non-mages alike.

[stobie]

If Elthina knew that, I would be confirmed in my belief that she & her creepy eyes were, in fact, the real villain all along.

[Foolsfolly]

David Gaider wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Also, without creativity I'm dubious that the Formari would have ever been able to discover how to create half the magical items/runes/mabari they do.

The subject of creativity with regards to Tranquil is an interesting one. There are all sorts of assumptions that people-- such as Templars-- make about Tranquil that are very likely quite off base. A Tranquil would no doubt be happy to explain the difference, if anyone cared to ask them. Few do.

Tranquil can be creative-- insofar as a very logical scientist might be. They pursue a means to an end, and are capable of coming up with alternate solutions to problems. They are, however, methodical to a fault. They will pursue the most reasonable solution at hand until it proves inviable. They will not change their methods or seek to create something different unless there is a clear reason to. They are not taken by inspiration, and some might say what they lack is intuition or the ability to act on hunches. The fact that they do not get bored and take no pleasure out creating (other than a certain satisfaction that comes from a task well-performed) takes much of the impetus away for them to change what they do. Some would mistake this for a lack of free will. Perhaps some day they will be surprised to learn how very wrong they are.

No one must tell the Qunari how they do the Rite of Tranquility. With Qunari science and weaponry a group of Tranquiled Saarbases would be able to come up with steam engines and hot air balloons in their first hour of work.

And if it's one thing Thedas doesn't need its horned war-painted flying Qunari dropping bombs and gas on cities.

[_Aine_]

Anarcala wrote...

Okay so I'm just gonna get my spoon out and do a little s**t stirring, but there's a neat discussion going on in the Anders thread (companions & NPC's) that shows Meredith had already sent for the Rite of Annulment before Anders blew up the Chantry.

My point is this...does his act now seem more justified given:
a) Meredith was almost openly planning mass murder without necessity
Elthina (via official or unofficial channels) would have known the rite had been sent for...and did nothing

(Apologies if this has already been covered)

Justified is a difficult word for me to use.  I think to Anders, of course it was. Just as Meredith felt she was justified in looking for the Rite.  Where emotion leads, logic rarely goes without being at least warped a bit by that emotion.  I don't think *most anyone* who has commit a crime says to themself: you know, I am probably wrong about this but maybe killing a thousand innocent people may be the right thing to do?  Lemme try and see.  Ooops, no I was wrong. Um, sorry?  

Psychopaths are scariest when they *really* think they are right.  More so even when done with zealous fervor.  

Anders action WAS similar to Meredith's call though, whether done pre-emptively or not, because they both SUCK at problem solving.  None of that was going to solve the issue. One was just going to clear the slate until they had to do the exact same thing all over again, and the other was set to start a revolt.  

For crazy people, it was justifiable as much as crazy people can justify anything.      Seems though the city was more scared of magic than they were of stupidty and fear, and wanted termination of issues instead of resolution.  

Modifié par shantisands, 04 avril 2011 - 12:05 .