1072 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

tmp7704 wrote...

But that's just the gameplay keeping the mage's powers in check and drumming up these of warriors/rogues to provide equally enjoyable experience for the player. I mean, fireballs which tickle at best, really.

Well, in the non-gameplay cutscene, the templars are totally kicking the mages butts.  And the mages lose, even with the Champion and all his mates on their side.  So perhaps it's the templars who should be locked up, particularly given their propensity to flip out and start murdering children.

[Curlain]

IanPolaris wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
This isa classic human rights issue.  It's simply evil to lock away human beings for what they are rather than what they've done.  That is a cornerstone to western morality.  [Regulating magic is a different matter and I'd probably agree with you on that more than disagree]

And all I'm suggesting is that waving away that "regulating magic" thing as an inconsequential detail that is less important than human rights is naive-- and I take issue with the idea that anyone suggesting the templars aren't all wrong is automatically suggesting they are completely right. That is equally naive, except in the viewpoint of someone who speaks only in hyperbole and for whom only the extremes on either side of the issue exist.

No one is waving it away and no one is saying that magic shouldn't be regulated.  However, you are suggestng as a Developer that it's legitament to lock away people for what they might do.  There is no getting around that, and that makes it a classic human rights issue.  Paint as many mages as bloodmages as you like, but that essential point doesn't go away.

-Polaris

Or perhaps as a Developer it was to help engage in these very debates and ideas with their characters in the game and work out their character's response to them, rather then the Developer designing the game world as stating that it's legitimate to lock people away for something they could do.  Just perhaps it's there to provide a very difficult social and moral situation which your character will have a response to, and given how you conceive and play that character, you could fall in a number of different places in that spectrum (including potentially supporting Meredith's actions).

So just maybe Gaider isn't being either anti-mage or pro-mage, just maybe he (and the rest of BioWare) have written in a situation designed to engage players and their characters as they role-play in a role-playing game.

So it just might possibly might be the case that rather then Gaider has so secret anti-mage agenda (which would be bizzare given mages only exist in fantasy and have no reality outside of it at all)

Modifié par Curlain, 08 avril 2011 - 09:13 .

[tmp7704]

Wulfram wrote...

Well, in the non-gameplay cutscene, the templars are totally kicking the mages butts.

That's true. It's also consistent with what the game lore says -- how the templars are the one really good counter against the mages, because they're capable of shutting down the very thing which makes the mages dangerous, i.e. magic.  I don't think this makes templars bigger threat overall than mages -- as this advantage doesn't exist when facing anyone other than the mage, and at the same time a mage facing anyone but templar wouldn't be rendered essentially powerless.

[AshenEndymion]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Camenae wrote...

What I don't understand is are you people arguing for mage EQUALITY or absolute mage FREEDOMS?

Why do people say that mages should NOT be regulated? At all?? Guess what, NORMAL PEOPLE ARE REGULATED TOO. We have laws. We have gun-licensing requirements. Every nuclear power plant, in fact just about every facility ever, has an @ss-ton of safety regulations.

Just about every single one of our laws operates on the assumption that we do NOT trust people to just use their self-control to maintain order in society. Why should mages be any DIFFERENT, that they should not have these laws? I get that maybe Templars and the Circle isn't the answer, but why shouldn't they have SOMEthing? I don't understand.

No one is arguing against regulation via law enforcement to protect everyone, people are arguing against a system where mages are under the authority of a religious order that openly views them as cursed and can exterminate them even if they've done nothing wrong.

Since the Circle is the regulation, and the Templars are the law enforcement that protects everyone, you seem to be arguing against the regulation and the law enforcment...

One might be opposed to the religious authority... but the religious authority is the only group that is capable of imposing the regulation at the moment that is "impartial" to the affairs of the regions the Circles are located.

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

And I'm going to stop talking to you now, as it's pretty clear it doesn't matter what I say you will simply interpret anything not-white as equaling black.

Sometimes that is in fact the case.  It's like your girlfriend saying she's a "little" pregnant.  Either you are or you are not.  No middle ground.

Either you think it's acceptable to treat people as less than human for what they are (rather than what they've done) or you do not.  There really isn't a middle ground here either.  I am no fan of the new DA2 Anders, but in this he's right when he says (on this issue) "There can be no compromise because there is no compromise."

-Polaris

[Camenae]

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.

(Emphasis added).

Yes, this.  I do not think that every mage is just going to turn into a blood mage/abomination, and I get that the player sees a very skewed sample of Kirkwall's mages.  There will always be bad apples, among mages and non-mages.

But it's those instances in bold I'm worried about.  It's a mage that does dangerous things AGAINST THEIR WILL that scares me the most.  I do think that a mage losing control to a demon is generally going to be more dangerous than an average person who loses control. 

Which is why I cannot support any system people suggest that leaves the policing COMPLETELY up to the mages themselves.  Because as we see they DO lose control.  And this is why in the real world we put in checks and balances.  I think whatever alternative to the Chantry circle system for the mages needs to have some checks and balances as well.

[The dead fish]

David Gaider 's absolutely right. I totally agree with him. Comparison of Japaneses is totally invalid, mages are a threat in spite of themselves, against themselves, against their will, for everyone without control. It is not just a story of nature, or race, but also a question of dangerousness associated with that nature. A threat that must be strictly controlled and that freedom alone can not control. On the contrary.


When you think that every day they must control them, to not to succumb to the demons, is already evidence of that they will never be like others, have a normal life.

DA2 demonstrates that we can not just be content to think as an ideal, compared to magic, it would be too easy. Yeah all free, for a better world. No. It takes a spirit of responsibility, a conscience, implies such power, such a danger, such a gift, such a potential, such a destructive threat.

It realizes in this episode that magic is a blessing as a curse, and refute the latter factor is pretending not to see the world, to condemn the world to decadence, closing his eyes on that, by the weakness of good feelings, which are often not the best way to make decisions. With Magi release more sure of themselves, to abuse their powers against the citizens completely unprepared for their full power, or losing control to use their talents no matter how

Without the Templars-cons like power, nothing would stop the rise of the Magi, especially if the demons of immlateriel take control of their souls and make them even more powerful.

I saved the lieutenant of Decimus, the mage apostate woman who seemed to avoid the Templars, and how she thanked me? By becoming a mage also his blood to turn three years later .... and removing my sister .... Really thank you, it's nice, it makes you want to show compassion for the Magi. I had given her confidence in her abilities as much as a healthy mind. But I do not want him, why? Because she simply lost control, which has rubbed Fenris mages all his life, could see the evil at the source of their power fantasy of his eyes, hence his suspicion justified by experience of magi, is absolutely right.

The coolest mages can finally succumb and become your worst enemy. In such situations, the good feelings that bring only weakness, and weakness in the disaster, as the abuse of power.

Almost all mages Kirkwall I tried to save, have become abominations or have succumbed to the magic of blood hounded. The father of a blood mage, the magistrate tried to protect her son, despite his murder against elves. You tell me, and then there are murders among the populace, but here the difference is significant and potentially worrisome. It is expected to make its murder by demons, he has no control, he kills against his will, it is worse than folly.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 08 avril 2011 - 09:25 .

[LobselVith8]

Curlain wrote...

Or perhaps as a Developer it was to help engage in these very debates and ideas with their characters in the game and work out their character's response to them, rather then the Developer designing the game world as stating that it's legitimate to lock people away for something they could do.  

The issue is when someone points out that Meredith ordered the execution of all Circle mages for something Anders did, and the response from the Head Writer is this:

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Yes, Meredith's act of genocide against innocent men, women, and children was completely legal according to Chantry law.

"Innocent" in this case being the mages of the Circle, yes.

Who are innocent in the manner of, say, a kitten that CAN EXPLODE IN YOUR FACE AND TAKE OUT AN ENTIRE CITY BLOCK IF YOU TOUCH IT... and might also bite your nose just because. But relatively innocent nonetheless.

At any rate, yes. Legally the templars and the Chantry are required to protect the public (who are innocent in the maner of not being the explode-in-your-face sort of kitten) from the Circle's potential dangers... or that is the intention, anyhow.

It entirely misses the point that mages are being murdered for something Anders specifically did.

Curlain wrote...

perhaps it's there to provide a very difficult social and moral situation which your character will have a response to, and given how you conceive and play that character, you could fall in a number of different places in that spectrum (including potentially supporting Meredith's actions).

People do fall on different sides of the debate, but when people say that mages are "property of the Chantry" or that mages aren't people (which was specifically said on this thread), it's never addressed. Only when people take issue with what the Chantry controlled Circles do to mages is it addressed. It's an issue I see as a serious problem when we have no apostate POV from Hawke, no danger from the templars for Merrill or Anders, and we encounter a plethora of mage antagonists who have selective amnesia about Hawke being an apostate anti-Meredith Champion of Kirkwall.

We encountered good people on both sides of the issue who showed there's no good or evil when it comes to mages and templars, and DA2 lacks that same balance, especially in Act III.

[Wulfram]

tmp7704 wrote...

That's true. It's also consistent with what the game lore says -- how the templars are the one really good counter against the mages, because they're capable of shutting down the very thing which makes the mages dangerous, i.e. magic.  I don't think this makes templars bigger threat overall than mages -- as this advantage doesn't exist when facing anyone other than the mage, and at the same time a mage facing anyone but templar wouldn't be rendered essentially powerless.

Well, perhaps the Chantry should stop hogging all the Templar training and then we can stop having to lock up all the mages.

[AshenEndymion]

IanPolaris wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

And I'm going to stop talking to you now, as it's pretty clear it doesn't matter what I say you will simply interpret anything not-white as equaling black.

Sometimes that is in fact the case.  It's like your girlfriend saying she's a "little" pregnant.  Either you are or you are not.  No middle ground.

Either you think it's acceptable to treat people as less than human for what they are (rather than what they've done) or you do not.  There really isn't a middle ground here either.  I am no fan of the new DA2 Anders, but in this he's right when he says (on this issue) "There can be no compromise because there is no compromise."

-Polaris

You heard it here, in Polaris' words... If it's not white, it must be black.

Edit: It must suck to be an orange in that world....

Modifié par AshenEndemion, 08 avril 2011 - 09:23 .

[tmp7704]

IanPolaris wrote...

Either you think it's acceptable to treat people as less than human for what they are (rather than what they've done) or you do not.

But you were told repeatedly that Mr.Gaider does not think that personally. And that you're wrongly attributing the fact he writes about people who do think this way... as some sort of sign that it is what's his personal view on this matter.

[Torax]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Torax wrote...

Don't change the subject to deflect. The topic is that it's the opinion some npcs would have in the World of Thedas. You are now trying to deflect and divert back to Meredith.

You mean I addressed the very issue that David Gaider responded to - via the innocence of the Kirkwall Circle in Anders destroying the Chantry of Kirkwall?

Torax wrote...

Not all in Thedas see mages as innocent and not dangerous to them.

And that has nothing to do with what I was addressing.

Torax wrote...

Even Wynne hinted in Origins how villages may kill the local mage cause the crops didn't grow well in a season.

 
And I have little doubt we have the Chantry to that for the anti-mage views when we know other cultures respond to mages differently.

Torax wrote...

Many fear magic and they have valid reasons to. An npc thinking something. Be them Irving or Meredith. are out of your hands. Don't attempt to imagine what they would or wouldn't do. Don't attempt to change the subject either. That is usually an implication of not having a valid response.

You continually change the subject and make the responses personal, and I don't see why. This is a discussion over fictional characters in a fictional universe, after all.

Gaider was basically stating the mindset of characters in Thedas. My reply to you was in regards to the mindset of those that fear mages. You tried to then say it doesn't apply trying to go back to Meredith and her actions at the end of Act 3. It is pointless and juvenile on your part. Either accept that you cannot change what npcs think. You do not live in Thedas to truly see the dangers that would fuel either side. That not all will automatically want to kill children. That not all who would argue with you even side with Meredith. I for example have never sided with the Templar. But I'm also not about to make a villain out of the head writer cause i don't like what a character did.

I won't read into things that are not there just so I can attempt to get a new jab at players. I wouldn't take a conversation and keep trying to change it when I feel like. Like trying to go from "Not all think mages are innocent of becoming a danger." Then taking that thought and trying to compare it to something else that has no change on the statement in the first place. Meredith believed what she did whether you like it or not. Also since I didn't type just one or two sentences. I'm sure you'll go and break it down into trying to reply to everything without adding anything new. You may even try to change or divert to another topic again.

[LobselVith8]

AshenEndemion wrote...

Since the Circle is the regulation, and the Templars are the law enforcement that protects everyone, you seem to be arguing against the regulation and the law enforcment...

Michael Hamilton referred to the Chantry controlled Circles as a dictatorship when he was addressing why the Magi boon didn't happen. I'd argue against a dictatorship where mages can be executed en masse for something they didn't do.

AshenEndemion wrote...

One might be opposed to the religious authority... but the religious authority is the only group that is capable of imposing the regulation at the moment that is "impartial" to the affairs of the regions the Circles are located.

That must explain the impartiality of Meredith becoming the dictator of Kirkwall and the templars trying to oust Aveline from the position of Guard Captain.

[asindre]

IanPolaris wrote...

Either you think it's acceptable to treat people as less than human for what they are (rather than what they've done) or you do not.  There really isn't a middle ground here either.  I am no fan of the new DA2 Anders, but in this he's right when he says (on this issue) "There can be no compromise because there is no compromise."

-Polaris

He's not saying he thinks it's acceptable, he's saying the templars thinks it's acceptable, and they have reason to think so.

[RazorrX]

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Doesn't it?  Otherwise you would use the same argument about any minority group you please (and this argument WAS used many times in history including the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII). 

There is a huge distiction between punishing people for what they've done and for who they are.  I am sorry that isn't clearer to more people.

Remember that part where I mentioned drawing comparison to real world situations that don't apply?

The Japanese-Americans in WWII were incapable of blood magic. They also did not turn into abominations against their will and slaughter innocents. Regardless of what people thought they might do, these things did not happen and they were incapable of being a severe threat to the world just by virtue of existing.

Which mages can be.

My initial point was that it's very easy to draw comparisons to human rights issues. Too easy, in fact, since it requires forgetting the fact that the willingness of the mages to do evil is not always the issue-- and that anyone who could endanger his neighbors by virtue of his existence would very quickly have his neighbors surrounding his house with torches and pitchforks... and that calling those people unreasonable fanatics for trying to protect themselves is just as myopic as suggesting the neighbor should be happy to let himself be burned at the stake.

I think the key thing here is that from a players perspective there really is no danger from being a mage.  Players can be a mage and have a very simplistic harrowing that any non mentally impaired person should have been able to pass.  From there the use of magic is pretty much just all good.  You can become a blood mage and have no draw backs.  You can drink the evil blood mage kool aide in Soldiers Peak - zero drawbacks.  Over and over and over the player sees ZERO bad effects from magic.  And this was in Origins.

Did Wynne go crazy from her possession?  No.  Did Wynne resist you making her a blood mage? No.  Did ANYONE i the game that was in your party go total abomination?  No.  Hell, even Jowan was normal the entire time you see him in game and if ANYONE had a weak will and should have gone Abomination, it was Jowan.

Now we jump to DA2 where we are shown a very oppressive Circle.  Templars raping, murduring, tranquilizing, etc. at will with what appears to be ZERO oversight.  In fact, the Knight Commander seems to actually encourage the abuse. At no time do we as a player see that the templars are justified.  What we see is that, once again, we can do blood magic, summon undead, etc. at will with NO threat of abomination, etc.  SO once again there is a disconnect between what the player sees and what the lore states.  Is it a wonder that so many players side with mages in this? 

So what the game did was to throw wave after wave of 'bad' mages at the characters party.  But we never saw the innocent corrupted, Bethany never suddenly went Abomination, A small child freshly come to magic did not blow up a part of the city, etc.  No.  What we have been given was an overexaggeration of 'bad' mages along with Templars saying how Mages are not people, Killing them at will, making harrowed mages tranquil against their wishes, raping them, etc.   And there is a wonder why people do not see that mages by just existing are the evil things that the chantry says?  If you rape, murder, torture, etc. ANY group they will turn on you with what ever they have. 

I love the lore of the world, and thing parts of both games were quite awesomely awesome.  However *if* the idea for DA2 was to show how templars are actually needed - it failed.  If Meredith had not been a fruitbat, if she had not been so abusive to begin with, if we had more interaction with good mages who go bad, if Bethany had become corrupted, etc. then maybe we would have seen this.   If the templars had seemed more kind at the beginning, slowly becoming more draconian as the above happened more and more, then maybe.   But in a game where Cullen of all people end up being the voice of Templar reason you have gone a bit too far towards the other side to get that idea across.

[tmp7704]

Wulfram wrote...

Well, perhaps the Chantry should stop hogging all the Templar training and then we can stop having to lock up all the mages.

You know, this is interesting thought. Templar skills are said to be something that anyone can learn with enough focus and persistence. It would be sensible for the Chantry to teach as wide as possible range of volunteers such abilities, so the mages wouldn't pose such a threat to the common folks.

[IanPolaris]

tmp7704 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Either you think it's acceptable to treat people as less than human for what they are (rather than what they've done) or you do not.

But you were told repeatedly that Mr.Gaider does not think that personally. And that you're wrongly attributing the fact he writes about people who do think this way... as some sort of sign that it is what's his personal view on this matter.

Yes he does (apparently) think that:

http://social.biowar...1321/13#6995376

-Polaris

[Paeyne]

Wulfram wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

... and the exploding kitten isn't dangerous until it explodes.

I am not saying that the Right of Annulment used in this instance was necessary, in fact I would argue that it wasn't.  There was no breach of containment that I could see and the reason for the act was Merith's agenda.

That doesn't diminish how dangerous a mage can become, regardless of age.

It's not like Warrior Hawke isn't just as dangerous as Mage Hawke.  While the really dangerous NPCs are the assassins.

And there's no point to the Right of Annulment except to authorise the murder of innocents, since Templars need no authorisation to kill blood mages and abominations.

I could also argue that Loghain or Arle Howe probably killed more people, directly or indirectly, than any mage in Fereldan, but that is not necessarily germane to the argument.

A possessed mage becomes instantly lethal, regardless of skill, age, temperament, intent, or social status.

Typhoid Mary may have been a truly wonderful person.  That did not make her any less lethal to the population.  In her case the threat she posed was contained.  She was confined in quarantine from 1915 till her death in 1938.  What if containment was not an option?

Modifié par Paeyne, 08 avril 2011 - 09:29 .

[asindre]

IanPolaris wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Either you think it's acceptable to treat people as less than human for what they are (rather than what they've done) or you do not.

But you were told repeatedly that Mr.Gaider does not think that personally. And that you're wrongly attributing the fact he writes about people who do think this way... as some sort of sign that it is what's his personal view on this matter.

Yes he does (apparently) think that:

http://social.biowar...1321/13#6995376

-Polaris

He's saying mages are dangerous, which they are, he isn't saying everything the templars are doing is acceptable.

[frylock23]

I guess it's also a basic rights issue in my mind.  Do you or do you not believe that humans(sentients) have a basic right to liberty, and do you believe then that mages are essentially human (sentient)?

If you answer yes to both, then how can you justify stripping an entire group of people of their basic liberty simply because of what they could do?  And that's the crux of the issue.

Now I can see IanPolaris' point in that the Japanese-Americans were detained during WWII simply because of what many feared that they could do.  Similar rationals kept Africans enslaved in the South until a war broke out over the issue.

I can also see DG's point in that mages are different because they're born that way and don't always have to choose to do what many in Thedas fear they could do.

However, they're still talking past each other.  The justification for turning the Circles into prisons is still based primarily on what many in Thedas fear that mages could do.

So, again it comes down to whether or not that fear is justified to the player.  We've seen what happens when mages go bad, but we've also seen evidence that it doesn't have to be that way.  What we don't have is any sense of perspective to let us know whether or not the awful things that mages could do are the outlier or the norm.

Modifié par frylock23, 08 avril 2011 - 09:31 .

[LobselVith8]

Torax wrote...

Gaider was basically stating the mindset of characters in Thedas. My reply to you was in regards to the mindset of those that fear mages. You tried to then say it doesn't apply trying to go back to Meredith and her actions at the end of Act 3. It is pointless and juvenile on your part.

I don't see how being on-topic is being juveline, nor do I understand why you continually try to make disagreements personal in a discussion over fictional groups in a fictitious universe.

Torax wrote...

Either accept that you cannot change what npcs think. You do not live in Thedas to truly see the dangers that would fuel either side. That not all will automatically want to kill children. That not all who would argue with you even side with Meredith. I for example have never sided with the Templar. But I'm also not about to make a villain out of the head writer cause i don't like what a character did.

I didn't use blood magic to force Gaider to respond to my point about Meredith ordering the execution of the Kirkwall Circle for something Anders did.

Torax wrote...

I won't read into things that are not there just so I can attempt to get a new jab at players. I wouldn't take a conversation and keep trying to change it when I feel like. Like trying to go from "Not all think mages are innocent of becoming a danger." Then taking that thought and trying to compare it to something else that has no change on the statement in the first place. Meredith believed what she did whether you like it or not. Also since I didn't type just one or two sentences. I'm sure you'll go and break it down into trying to reply to everything without adding anything new. You may even try to change or divert to another topic again.

She may have believed in what she was doing, but it doesn't change that Meredith ordered the genocide of the Circle of Kirkwall and handwaved the man who was actually responsible for the attack on the Chantry.

[tmp7704]

IanPolaris wrote...

Yes he does (apparently) think that:

http://social.biowar...1321/13#6995376

Uhm.. where exactly does it say there Mr.Gaider thinks personally it's acceptable to treat people less than human for what they are?

[Torax]

tmp7704 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Well, perhaps the Chantry should stop hogging all the Templar training and then we can stop having to lock up all the mages.

You know, this is interesting thought. Templar skills are said to be something that anyone can learn with enough focus and persistence. It would be sensible for the Chantry to teach as wide as possible range of volunteers such abilities, so the mages wouldn't pose such a threat to the common folks.

The catch for the Chantry. Lyrium supposedly enhances their abilities. Lyrium isn't all that cheap. Plus Lyrium is a good way to control said Templars. So by teaching the skills to everyone you would turn the entire population into Lyrium fiends or would prove to said templars don't even need it. Thus losing more of the control of said Templars.

[The dead fish]

When I read some posts, I feel like the only one who read the codex in Dao. Tevintide's empire led by  mages, with their army of abominations to keep people under their domination.

Fortunately, the Templars are there, if not already, Thedaswould  be governed again by the power of the Magi and their enslaved peoples. 

 These wise men got out of control have committed heinous acts, have created the darkspawn by their ambitions and thirst for power unstoppable,  awakened the demons, enslaved peoples, How can you not see the threat that mages are, simply by their nature,  after reading the codex with Andastre?

Modifié par Sylvianus, 08 avril 2011 - 09:34 .

[sphinxess]

tmp7704 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Well, perhaps the Chantry should stop hogging all the Templar training and then we can stop having to lock up all the mages.

You know, this is interesting thought. Templar skills are said to be something that anyone can learn with enough focus and persistence. It would be sensible for the Chantry to teach as wide as possible range of volunteers such abilities, so the mages wouldn't pose such a threat to the common folks.

That is a horrible idea to the Chantry. They would have no excuse to maintain Templar forces that are often the largest best organized forces in a country.