1072 réponses à ce sujet

[Torax]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Torax wrote...

Aye, she's crazy. She openly refers to magic as a curse. She was acting legally though however. She'd kill them all cause of a hatred fueled by what her sister's "curse" of magic cause to her family and all she knew growing up.

Crazy people and having the license to kill all they hate? Just asking for trouble and there is your last boss. Now improved with saber swords and robots.

She was acting with the legal authority to commit gencodie - I don't dispute that.

Then why bring it up at all? Just so you can call it Genocide? It makes the topic circular and has it going no where. I swear some of you pro magers are as annoying as Anders is in Act 3. It's like all they want to talk about is how evil the Templars are. How long until y'all just mourn what happened in Act 3 and move on? Maybe when Mass Effect 3 comes out.

[LobselVith8]

Mike Canary wrote...

On a unrelated note that's been bothering me...Why do you keep signing your name when it's written right next to the post? Seems redundant...

I know a few users who do that because they used to post their name from the early days of the internet. It's an old habit.

[Torax]

IanPolaris wrote...


Perhaps but it's not clear.  I'd like to know if DG's quoted post reflects his (and the Dev's position) or the Templar's position.  I think it's a reasonable thing to ask.

-Polaris

Why so you can attempt to paint him and the devs as mage haters?

Modifié par Torax, 08 avril 2011 - 08:02 .

[IanPolaris]

Mike Canary wrote...
Genocide or not, it's still legal, which was a substantial argument of this thread. However, I think Mr. Gaider is less arguing for or against the Annulment (morally or legally) and more trying to help you (and others) understand why Meredith would have felt such drastic actions were understandable.

Yes the legality has been established.  I don't really agree with the reasoning, but it's his (DG's) call to make and he made it.  However, the rest of his post sounded like Dev personal opinion on mages.  I'd like to know if that's true.

On a unrelated note that's been bothering me...Why do you keep signing your name when it's written right next to the post? Seems redundant...

Habit.  It used to be helpful in the very early days of Usnet and I've never lost the habit.

-Polaris

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
DG's last post seems to regard mages as something less than human, ie. dangerous weapons that need to be locked away. I was asking for clarification if that was the official Dev position on mages in Dragon Age or if that was simply the nutty Templars talking (because that post sounded a lot like Cullen at his least likeable).

There is no "official Dev position". If I take contention with anything, it's the propensity for people arguing that the templars are terrible oppressors to forget that mages are that dangerous... and not always by choice. In fact, that element of it not always being their choice makes it worse.

But, no, instead some people like to reduce them to concepts and compare them to real world situations... where we have no comparison. If anyone is doing the dehumanizing, it's them. So if I play Devil's Advocate a little, you'll have to forgive me, but it's primarily because I think those people are incredibly naive.

[IanPolaris]

Torax wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...


Perhaps but it's not clear.  I'd like to know if DG's quoted post reflects his (and the Dev's position) or the Templar's position.  I think it's a reasonable thing to ask.

-Polaris

Why so you can attempt to paint him and the devs as mage haters?

Perhaps because they are (or at least might be)?  It is my personal opinion based on how the Devs have written the latest DA material and much of the commentary especially on DAO and how many people picked the mages by default that the devs are specifically taking a much harder anti-mage line.  I can't say I care for it.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Torax wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

She was acting with the legal authority to commit gencodie - I don't dispute that.

Then why bring it up at all? Just so you can call it Genocide?

 
Because the OP concerns the Right of Annulment.

Torax wrote...

It makes the topic circular and has it going no where.

But the thread concerns Meredith's order, so how is it circular if we're on-topic?

Torax wrote...

I swear some of you pro magers are as annoying as Anders is in Act 3.

So it's OK for you to make this personal with people who disagree with you, but it's not all right for people to discuss the original post's premise of Meredith ordering the Right of Annulment? Why do you insist on turning a simple disagreement over the actions of a fictional character into a personal debate?

Torax wrote...

It's like all they want to talk about is how evil the Templars are. How long until y'all just mourn what happened in Act 3 and move on? Maybe when Mass Effect 3 comes out.

No one is saying templars are evil, but some people are addressing that the Chantry controlled Circles have failed the mages.

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
DG's last post seems to regard mages as something less than human, ie. dangerous weapons that need to be locked away. I was asking for clarification if that was the official Dev position on mages in Dragon Age or if that was simply the nutty Templars talking (because that post sounded a lot like Cullen at his least likeable).

There is no "official Dev position". If I take contention with anything, it's the propensity for people arguing that the templars are terrible oppressors to forget that mages are that dangerous... and not always by choice. In fact, that element of it not always being their choice makes it worse.

But, no, instead some people like to reduce them to concepts and compare them to real world situations... where we have no comparison. If anyone is doing the dehumanizing, it's them. So if I play Devil's Advocate a little, you'll have to forgive me, but it's primarily because I think those people are incredibly naive.

I take it then that you and your team are taking  more "anti-mage" position then to show how "naive" we all have been?  Seems that way from where I sit.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

David Gaider wrote...

There is no "official Dev position". If I take contention with anything, it's the propensity for people arguing that the templars are terrible oppressors to forget that mages are that dangerous... and not always by choice. In fact, that element of it not always being their choice makes it worse.

Is this why we have no apostate POV in DA2 and have to fight mages in Act III even as an anti-Meredith mage? And I've read many people who disagree with the Chantry controlled Circles, and still name good templars who demonstrate that not all templars are evil - Ser Thrask being the most recent.

David Gaider wrote...

But, no, instead some people like to reduce them to concepts and compare them to real world situations... where we have no comparison. If anyone is doing the dehumanizing, it's them. So if I play Devil's Advocate a little, you'll have to forgive me, but it's primarily because I think those people are incredibly naive.

But isn't the whole premise of DA2's conclusion that Hawke needs to make a choice between the templars and the mages? I don't the same response from the devs when some in the pro-Chantry side have said that mages are "property of the Chantry" or argued that mages aren't people.

[Mike Canary]

IanPolaris wrote...

Torax wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...


Perhaps but it's not clear.  I'd like to know if DG's quoted post reflects his (and the Dev's position) or the Templar's position.  I think it's a reasonable thing to ask.

-Polaris

Why so you can attempt to paint him and the devs as mage haters?

Perhaps because they are (or at least might be)?  It is my personal opinion based on how the Devs have written the latest DA material and much of the commentary especially on DAO and how many people picked the mages by default that the devs are specifically taking a much harder anti-mage line.  I can't say I care for it.

-Polaris

It seems to me that DAO was a little bit too pro-mage. I mean, it seemed as though Dragon Age Origins had a very "Free the Mages!" mentality. Perhaps DA2 was a way for developers to balance that. I mean, otherwise there's not much conflict, and no plot. Right?

Modifié par Mike Canary, 08 avril 2011 - 08:09 .

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
I take it then that you and your team are taking  more "anti-mage" position then to show how "naive" we all have been?  Seems that way from where I sit.

I'm not taking an "anti-mage" position at all. I'm pointing out that it's not as clear cut as some people like to paint it-- that perhaps templars are put in an incredibly difficult position. Nowhere do I say that I think they are in the right. That is you, filling in the blanks on your own.

As you tend to do.

Modifié par David Gaider, 08 avril 2011 - 08:10 .

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
I take it then that you and your team are taking  more "anti-mage" position then to show how "naive" we all have been?  Seems that way from where I sit.

I'm not taking an "anti-mage" position at all. I'm pointing out that it's not as clear cut as some people like to paint it-- that perhaps templars are put in an incredibly difficult position. Nowhere do I say that I think they are in the right. That is you, filling in the blanks on your own.

As you tend to do.

As I am supposed to do as both a reader of a book and the player in a game.  Come on, aren't you taking the anti-mage side?  Read Lob's post from just before.  You don't seem to plead for balance from those that agree with the Templars that mages aren't really people.  Really?

-Polaris

Edit:  And was using an edit to attack me personally, really needed?

Modifié par IanPolaris, 08 avril 2011 - 08:13 .

[Torax]

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
DG's last post seems to regard mages as something less than human, ie. dangerous weapons that need to be locked away. I was asking for clarification if that was the official Dev position on mages in Dragon Age or if that was simply the nutty Templars talking (because that post sounded a lot like Cullen at his least likeable).

There is no "official Dev position". If I take contention with anything, it's the propensity for people arguing that the templars are terrible oppressors to forget that mages are that dangerous... and not always by choice. In fact, that element of it not always being their choice makes it worse.

But, no, instead some people like to reduce them to concepts and compare them to real world situations... where we have no comparison. If anyone is doing the dehumanizing, it's them. So if I play Devil's Advocate a little, you'll have to forgive me, but it's primarily because I think those people are incredibly naive.

I love you a little bit more.

It's easy to hate the Templars or the Blood Mages. Templars far more simple to hate since she wants to kill all the mages and refers to them as a Curse. But, the player character isn't as barraged from that perspective. It's easier to hate the enemy you know less. Especially if they then shield themselves with references that do not apply to characters in Thedas. People shrug off the threat that was Tevinter cause they do not know as much or see the threat they were so long ago. A threat so great it took Andraste's army to take them down.

Magic is not innocent. It is a weapon. Aveline mentions how she can put down here sword. Bethany replies with an almost hint of sadness "I have tried". Blood Magic is the easier hint of ultimate evil. But all magic is dangerous. Even the kindest most pious mage could become enslaed and destroy all around them. The game doesn't relate this as well to the players. Especially since the PC has the ultimate "I'm no abomination" shield.

[PantheraOnca]

I am having deja-vu cause I could swear I read a post that sounded exactly like Mike Canary's

It seems to me that DAO was a little bit too pro-mage. I mean, it seemed as though Dragon Age Origins had a very "Free the Mages!" mentality. Perhaps DA2 was a way for developers to balance that. I mean, otherwise there's not much of a plot. Right?

Quickly followed by a similar response from David Gaider before. Has this territory just been that trodded over or did I read this already in some alternate past?

[IanPolaris]

A trained warrior is dangerous to others without a sword...soemthing Aveline should know perfectly well. Martial training and the willingness to kill in combat is an attitude first and foremost.

Otherwise by the same logic we should lock away all combat veterans and martial arts masters since they can't 'put down their sword' either.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Mike Canary wrote...

It seems to me that DAO was a little bit too pro-mage. I mean, it seemed as though Dragon Age Origins had a very "Free the Mages!" mentality. Perhaps DA2 was a way for developers to balance that. I mean, otherwise there's not much conflict, and no plot. Right?

DA:O still presented us with good people and bad people on both sides of the issue. We encounters templars protecting the innocent in Lothering including Ser Bryant, we met a good templar in the Alienage named Ser Otto, and one could argue that Knight-Commander Greagoir showed compassion for the mages during "A Broken Circle." We could still advocate the independence of mages with the Magi Boon, but no one could seriously argue that all templars were evil. The problem is we don't have that same balance in DA2.

[Torax]

LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

There is no "official Dev position". If I take contention with anything, it's the propensity for people arguing that the templars are terrible oppressors to forget that mages are that dangerous... and not always by choice. In fact, that element of it not always being their choice makes it worse.

Is this why we have no apostate POV in DA2 and have to fight mages in Act III even as an anti-Meredith mage? And I've read many people who disagree with the Chantry controlled Circles, and still name good templars who demonstrate that not all templars are evil - Ser Thrask being the most recent.

David Gaider wrote...

But, no, instead some people like to reduce them to concepts and compare them to real world situations... where we have no comparison. If anyone is doing the dehumanizing, it's them. So if I play Devil's Advocate a little, you'll have to forgive me, but it's primarily because I think those people are incredibly naive.

But isn't the whole premise of DA2's conclusion that Hawke needs to make a choice between the templars and the mages? I don't the same response from the devs when some in the pro-Chantry side have said that mages are "property of the Chantry" or argued that mages aren't people.

Umm, Anders and Merrill are both Apostates. Where is this lack of Apostate point of views?

[Darth Krytie]

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
I take it then that you and your team are taking  more "anti-mage" position then to show how "naive" we all have been?  Seems that way from where I sit.

I'm not taking an "anti-mage" position at all. I'm pointing out that it's not as clear cut as some people like to paint it-- that perhaps templars are put in an incredibly difficult position. Nowhere do I say that I think they are in the right. That is you, filling in the blanks on your own.

As you tend to do.

<3 I never had so much platonic internet love for a person than I do right now.

[Mike Canary]

IanPolaris wrote...

A trained warrior is dangerous to others without a sword...soemthing Aveline should know perfectly well. Martial training and the willingness to kill in combat is an attitude first and foremost.

Otherwise by the same logic we should lock away all combat veterans and martial arts masters since they can't 'put down their sword' either.

-Polaris

This argument would make more sense if the average warrior's sword could levitate on its own and start hacking apart innocent people. Like, in theory, a possessed mage could.

[David Gaider]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
As I am supposed to do as both a reader of a book and the player in a game.[quote]

A reader of a book or player of a game is supposed to interpret. Not write passages that aren't there and then base their arguments on those imagined passages. That is, I'd suggest, one level of interpretation too far.

[quote]Come on, aren't you taking the anti-mage side?[/quote]

No. Read what I said. I suggested that perhaps mages aren't all that innocent. Nowhere did I say the templars were justified or even remotely correct in their actions. Lack of A does not equal B.

[quote]Edit:  And was using an edit to attack me personally, really needed?[/quote]

It is when the naive person I am referring to is you, specifically.

Modifié par David Gaider, 08 avril 2011 - 08:21 .

[LobselVith8]

Torax wrote...

Umm, Anders and Merrill are both Apostates. Where is this lack of Apostate point of views?

Apostate Hawke has no apostate POV.

[Wulfram]

David Gaider wrote...

No. Read what I said. I suggested that perhaps mages aren't all that innocent.

So children are guilty for being born?

[Wulfram]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Apostate Hawke has no apostate POV.

Not really, when no Templar ever takes any action about his being a mage

[IanPolaris]

Mike Canary wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

A trained warrior is dangerous to others without a sword...soemthing Aveline should know perfectly well. Martial training and the willingness to kill in combat is an attitude first and foremost.

Otherwise by the same logic we should lock away all combat veterans and martial arts masters since they can't 'put down their sword' either.

-Polaris

This argument would make more sense if the average warrior's sword could levitate on its own and start hacking apart innocent people. Like, in theory, a possessed mage could.

Even in Kirkwall which has an abnormally thin Veil, we don't see mages up and going abomination just because.  The times you do see it is under extreme stress...and that's with a thin veil where the rules are different.

In addition, get a person hyped on drugs (PCP for example....and that can happen without said person;'s knowledge in some cases) and a trained warrior/martial-artist is at least as dangeous.

-Polaris

[Torax]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Torax wrote...

Umm, Anders and Merrill are both Apostates. Where is this lack of Apostate point of views?

Apostate Hawke has no apostate POV.

Do Merrill and Anders both present opinions on the situation and how they view magic and so on? That is called a point of view of an apostate. Just because it's not your PC does not let you ignore that fact. Like you are some how not given something that is most definitely there. Just one Apostate wants war and the other thinks it's not their fight. But they are a point of view. Along with Bethany as well for a non mage Hawke. Don't ignore what is there and then claim it is missing.