1072 réponses à ce sujet

[Camenae]

RazorrX wrote...

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.

You know, I agree with you, so much.

Throughout the entire series, we are constantly TOLD the dangers of magic but never really SHOWN it.  So, all this debate essentially arise out of people who extrapolated the danger from what they are told, and people who feel that they CANNOT extrapolate the danger just from what they're told but have never seen (and they would not be wrong).

[Torax]

tmp7704 wrote...

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?

In his head. The same reason why Gaider said all he Polaris seems to see is White or Black. So anything Gaider says that opposes Polaris's view points automatically makes Gaider and the entire writing team as mage hating baby killers. Or some other juvenile conspiracy theory.

[tmp7704]

sphinxess wrote...

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.

The existence of national guard or similar militia forces doesn't prevent nations from maintaining regular army, nor means they need an excuse to maintain one. The Chantry's own templars are similar -- they're organized and capable of dealing with situations where the volunteers fail. They also serve other purposes (exalted marches and such)

Modifié par tmp7704, 08 avril 2011 - 09:37 .

[Torax]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

I have to make it personal with you to see if you would even keep it on the same subject. We get it okay. You think it is Genocide. You have said the same damn things over and over. Why do you keep doing it then. You think we are not reading it? You think just because we don't "HEY HE IS RIGHT!" that you have to keep saying the same things over and over. Move on. I mean the game came out like a month ago. I got over. Why can't you.

[Curlain]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

To the first, it seems an explanation as to why Meredith would in face of such a large-scale mage-attack decide to invoke the Rite of Annulment on Kirkwall (which as I understand would include all mages in Kirkwall, Circle, apostate etc).  It was given as a reason that not only one mage was responsible but conditions in Kirkwall had developed to such a state (perhaps made worse with the Veil being thin) that all mages could be considered unacceptable risks (and given that quite a few do fall prey following this event this view has some justification).  Whether Meredith was right to do, or is just using it as a pretext is up to the player decide, and is up to them to have their Hawke respond as they feel that character would.  In truth, Anders knew it would force this action (at least from someone like Meredith, it was why he did it).

As for 2nd issue of views, it's perfectly fine for someone to have their character view mages as they feel that character would, they can hate mages, think they should all be killed, or that they should be freed.  LIke I said, these issues are they to demand a response from the PC, and it's up to us as the players to decide how Hawke in this case does respond to it.

Finally, in terms of a lack of response to PC and party mages, I couldn't agree more, it should have been reactive (as BG2 was) to magic use, and it was definitely a missed opportunity given the Mage-Templar conflict is one the key issues of DA2.  It is a real shame that there is no reaction to Merrill, Anders (or Hawke if mage) being mages, at no time are they hunted on rumours of them being mages, and no one reacts to them using magic.  I agree with you completely here.

As to developers siding with some threads over others, I can't comment having not read all these threads, perhaps though they add more points to these threads as we are naturally more likely to feel sympathy for mages, and so the alternative view needs more argument (as we are more naturally likely to side with the oppressed) to show that the oppression could be viewed as necessary (and you can therefore craft a rational PC who believes in it)

[Wulfram]

asindre wrote...

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.

He at least appears to be saying it's an understandable, reasonable position.  Which is not something I can accept.  Not when it comes to the murder of children and other innocent people.

When it comes to the Right of Annulment, it is simply one sided, for me at least.  The way to make me sympathise with the Templars is to not have them murder children, not to throw massive amounts of blood mages at me.

[Paeyne]

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

So Polaris, are you saying that someone like Typhoid Mary should not have been contained for what she was (a carrier of a virulent and lethal disease) even if she may have been a perfectly nice woman?

Sometimes societies need to protect themselves from individuals even if that may not be the individuals fault.

Of course, this could be done humanely.  I don't necessarily like the way the Templars do this even if I recognize the need for it to be done.

[Torax]

Wulfram wrote...

asindre wrote...

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.

He at least appears to be saying it's an understandable, reasonable position.  Which is not something I can accept.  Not when it comes to the murder of children and other innocent people.

When it comes to the Right of Annulment, it is simply one sided, for me at least.  The way to make me sympathise with the Templars is to not have them murder children, not to throw massive amounts of blood mages at me.

You not being in agreement with what Meredith wanted to do is fine. I have never agreed with it either. Point being is that Gaider was just saying how some Templars may see mages and magic. Not Gaider's own personal point of view. Just what some characters in the World of Thedas would view. Like the more harsh templars. Even Cullen has a point where he thinks mages are not real people and are dangerous. The response from hawke for middle ground has Cullen thinking that maybe if the teachings of chantry to the mages would calm them down.

Modifié par Torax, 08 avril 2011 - 09:48 .

[IanPolaris]

Paeyne wrote...

So Polaris, are you saying that someone like Typhoid Mary should not have been contained for what she was (a carrier of a virulent and lethal disease) even if she may have been a perfectly nice woman?

Sometimes societies need to protect themselves from individuals even if that may not be the individuals fault.

Of course, this could be done humanely.  I don't necessarily like the way the Templars do this even if I recognize the need for it to be done.

Typhoid Mary by her contact with others gave them a lethal disease and she knew it.  There is no evidence even in Kirkwall that mages go bad just by having a bad day unless completely untrained or under-duress....and we also know tht people with deep cellars with not a hint of magic also can fall prey to demons...so I guess we lock up people with deep cellars in Kirkwall.

The disease model has already been thorougly discussed and debunked in other threads.  Magic in Thedas does not follow the disease model.

-Polaris

[Wulfram]

Torax wrote...

You not being in agreement with what Meredith wanted to do is fine. I have never agreed with it either. Point being is that Gaider was just saying how some Templars may see mages and magic. Not Gaider's own personal point of view. Just what some characters in the World of Thedas would view. Like the more harsh templars. Even Cullen has a point where he thinks mages are not real people and are dangerous. The response from hawke for middle ground has Cullen thinking that maybe if the teachings of chantry to the mages would calm them down.

Well, any Templars with this view are monsters, and Cullen is utterly contemptible.

[PantheraOnca]

To whomever mentioned spreading the Templar training around: Yes. So very yes. I have mentioned similar ideas in other threads. The common "counterargument" is that the chantry is an evil organization merely seeking to protect its own powerbase. I may have added the word evil there, but that's what it comes across as.

To whomever said Tevinter has armies of abominations: I find it hard to take any of the game's encounters as "cannon" for various reasons. With that aside, I want to know how much damage abominations cause in Tevinter. You would assume that if mages are as unreliable at keeping demons away as some suggest, that the entire country would be full of abominations. It does not appear to be. Denarious doesn't go abominable mage-man on himself when you kill him. If anyone had a reason to, he did at that point.

[IanPolaris]

Torax wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

asindre wrote...

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.

He at least appears to be saying it's an understandable, reasonable position.  Which is not something I can accept.  Not when it comes to the murder of children and other innocent people.

When it comes to the Right of Annulment, it is simply one sided, for me at least.  The way to make me sympathise with the Templars is to not have them murder children, not to throw massive amounts of blood mages at me.

You not being in agreement with what Meredith wanted to do is fine. I have never agreed with it either. Point being is that Gaider was just saying how some Templars may see mages and magic. Not Gaider's own personal point of view. Just what some characters in the World of Thedas would view. Like the more harsh templars. Even Cullen has a point where he thinks mages are not real people and are dangerous. The response from hawke for middle ground has Cullen thinking that maybe if the teachings of chantry to the mages would calm them down.

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

This does seem to be DG's own view and it DOES argue that locking up people (mages) because they might be dangerous is a reasonable position.  That's unacceptable.

-Polaris

[Camenae]

You know, I never ever understood why TV programs and extra features on DVDs ALWAYS need to put a warning: "The following segment contains commentary that does NOT reflect the views of" FOX studio, Warner Bros., or something along those lines.

I always thought, REALLY? That's actually a concern? Who would hear a random actor say something and then get mad at the studio??

Well, now I know...

[LobselVith8]

Paeyne wrote...

So Polaris, are you saying that someone like Typhoid Mary should not have been contained for what she was (a carrier of a virulent and lethal disease) even if she may have been a perfectly nice woman?

Sometimes societies need to protect themselves from individuals even if that may not be the individuals fault.

Of course, this could be done humanely.  I don't necessarily like the way the Templars do this even if I recognize the need for it to be done.

The "Typhoid Mary" example would be a better argument for killing the Messenger and the Architect in Awakening than in dealing with the Circles of Magi, especially given how darkspawn eat people and violate women.

[asindre]

Wulfram wrote...

asindre wrote...

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.

He at least appears to be saying it's an understandable, reasonable position.  Which is not something I can accept.  Not when it comes to the murder of children and other innocent people.

When it comes to the Right of Annulment, it is simply one sided, for me at least.  The way to make me sympathise with the Templars is to not have them murder children, not to throw massive amounts of blood mages at me.

I think it is understandable, and I say this as a person who is usually on the mage side of these arguments, a lot of the circle mages were using blood magic, there were rebellions, hell even the first enchanter was a blood mage. The whole circle was out of control and the templars did what they thought was necessary.

And maybe you shouldn't judge all templars because of a decision made by meredith who was crazy because of the lyrium idol.

[Torax]

PantheraOnca wrote...

To whomever mentioned spreading the Templar training around: Yes. So very yes. I have mentioned similar ideas in other threads. The common "counterargument" is that the chantry is an evil organization merely seeking to protect its own powerbase. I may have added the word evil there, but that's what it comes across as.

To whomever said Tevinter has armies of abominations: I find it hard to take any of the game's encounters as "cannon" for various reasons. With that aside, I want to know how much damage abominations cause in Tevinter. You would assume that if mages are as unreliable at keeping demons away as some suggest, that the entire country would be full of abominations. It does not appear to be. Denarious doesn't go abominable mage-man on himself when you kill him. If anyone had a reason to, he did at that point.

When Tevinter destroyed Arlathan they took all the knowledge they could from the Elves as well as the knowledge they had arleady learned supposedly from the Old Gods. So their knowledge on magic is the most greatest of any of the currently know groups. While even the current magisters may have lost some or their older magical knowledge. The current Circle's magic most likely is weak compared to Tevinter's Magisters. Especially the current Archon. They have old and Ancient knowledge of Magic. So it is possible they could summon demons and abominations without becoming one themselves. As a nation they have been studying it for thousands of years.

Even when the Imperium was pushed back before it supposedly took a uniting of forces and the powers granted to Andraste to defeat the Imperium. Tales of things like famine and so on that aided them to weaken the Imperium's forces.

[IanPolaris]

asindre wrote...

And maybe you shouldn't judge all templars because of a decision made by meredith who was crazy because of the lyrium idol.

So Meridith stormed and annuled the tower all herself then?

-Polaris

[Paeyne]

IanPolaris wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

So Polaris, are you saying that someone like Typhoid Mary should not have been contained for what she was (a carrier of a virulent and lethal disease) even if she may have been a perfectly nice woman?

Sometimes societies need to protect themselves from individuals even if that may not be the individuals fault.

Of course, this could be done humanely.  I don't necessarily like the way the Templars do this even if I recognize the need for it to be done.

Typhoid Mary by her contact with others gave them a lethal disease and she knew it.  There is no evidence even in Kirkwall that mages go bad just by having a bad day unless completely untrained or under-duress....and we also know tht people with deep cellars with not a hint of magic also can fall prey to demons...so I guess we lock up people with deep cellars in Kirkwall.

The disease model has already been thorougly discussed and debunked in other threads.  Magic in Thedas does not follow the disease model.

-Polaris

You can evade the question if you like, but my post did not address the nature of magic, it addressed the nature of society and how we deal with dangers to that society.

Typhoid Mary through no fault of her own was a lethal danger to sociey and needed to be contained. 

Mages through possession and no fault of their own can become a lethal danger to society  and need to be contained.

In both cases they are people and need to be treated as such, within the bounds of reasonable protection to society.

My question still stands.  Would you let Typhoid Mary go knowing the threat that she posed to others (presuming she felt her confinement was unjust.)

-Paeyne

[Wulfram]

asindre wrote...

I think it is understandable, and I say this as a person who is usually on the mage side of these arguments, a lot of the circle mages were using blood magic, there were rebellions, hell even the first enchanter was a blood mage. The whole circle was out of control and the templars did what they thought was necessary.

The whole circle, including Bethany?  Including the Children?

There's also the assumption that Blood Magic is de facto cause to kill everyone, which isn't exactly a given.  How many people think Merrill should be killed?

And maybe you shouldn't judge all templars because of a decision made by meredith who was crazy because of the lyrium idol.

I judge all Templars because the Templars followed her orders.  Unless Meredith had mind controlling abilities, they are culpable.  And the Right of Annullment, which is a Right to kill children because there's a riot in the prison you put them in, is not something Meredith invented.

[Torax]

IanPolaris wrote...

Torax wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

asindre wrote...

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.

He at least appears to be saying it's an understandable, reasonable position.  Which is not something I can accept.  Not when it comes to the murder of children and other innocent people.

When it comes to the Right of Annulment, it is simply one sided, for me at least.  The way to make me sympathise with the Templars is to not have them murder children, not to throw massive amounts of blood mages at me.

You not being in agreement with what Meredith wanted to do is fine. I have never agreed with it either. Point being is that Gaider was just saying how some Templars may see mages and magic. Not Gaider's own personal point of view. Just what some characters in the World of Thedas would view. Like the more harsh templars. Even Cullen has a point where he thinks mages are not real people and are dangerous. The response from hawke for middle ground has Cullen thinking that maybe if the teachings of chantry to the mages would calm them down.

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

This does seem to be DG's own view and it DOES argue that locking up people (mages) because they might be dangerous is a reasonable position.  That's unacceptable.

-Polaris

Grow up and move on. He already said you just assume what he thinks personally. It's sad really. Especially if you just post the same thing over again.

[LobselVith8]

Torax wrote...

I have to make it personal with you to see if you would even keep it on the same subject.

Did you think I was going to turn into a Pride Demon or something?

Torax wrote...

We get it okay. You think it is Genocide. You have said the same damn things over and over. Why do you keep doing it then.

It's genocide according to the definition of the word. The Right of Annulment entails murdering the population of the Kirkwall Circle. Regardless of whether it's legal or not (and Gaider already addressed that it was legal), it's still genocide.

Torax wrote...

You think we are not reading it? You think just because we don't "HEY HE IS RIGHT!" that you have to keep saying the same things over and over. Move on. I mean the game came out like a month ago. I got over. Why can't you.

I'm addressing the Right of Annulment that Knight-Commander Meredith declared against the Circle.

[Torax]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Torax wrote...

I have to make it personal with you to see if you would even keep it on the same subject.

Did you think I was going to turn into a Pride Demon or something?

Torax wrote...

We get it okay. You think it is Genocide. You have said the same damn things over and over. Why do you keep doing it then.

It's genocide according to the definition of the word. The Right of Annulment entails murdering the population of the Kirkwall Circle. Regardless of whether it's legal or not (and Gaider already addressed that it was legal), it's still genocide.

Torax wrote...

You think we are not reading it? You think just because we don't "HEY HE IS RIGHT!" that you have to keep saying the same things over and over. Move on. I mean the game came out like a month ago. I got over. Why can't you.

I'm addressing the Right of Annulment that Knight-Commander Meredith declared against the Circle.

And what new are you adding to the conversation by mentioning it all? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. it's been a month. Move on really. Even what little bit of new that Polaris started this entire thread with was basically made irrelevent. Just find something new to complain about in the game. If you even still play it.

[PantheraOnca]

Torax wrote...

When Tevinter destroyed Arlathan they took all the knowledge they could from the Elves as well as the knowledge they had arleady learned supposedly from the Old Gods. So their knowledge on magic is the most greatest of any of the currently know groups. While even the current magisters may have lost some or their older magical knowledge. The current Circle's magic most likely is weak compared to Tevinter's Magisters. Especially the current Archon. They have old and Ancient knowledge of Magic. So it is possible they could summon demons and abominations without becoming one themselves. As a nation they have been studying it for thousands of years.

Even when the Imperium was pushed back before it supposedly took a uniting of forces and the powers granted to Andraste to defeat the Imperium. Tales of things like famine and so on that aided them to weaken the Imperium's forces.

I mean, ok? but if abominations can be controlled, then it kind of shoots the whole "BUT THE MAGES WILL KILL THE TOWN WITHOUT MEANING TOOOOOOOOOOO" argument in the head (rather than the foot).

I don't think its that the Magisters know how to handle abominations as much as there just aren't that many abominations there, but I'm basing this off essentially my own speculation.

[IanPolaris]

Paeyne wrote...

Typhoid Mary through no fault of her own was a lethal danger to sociey and needed to be contained. 

Mages through possession and no fault of their own can become a lethal danger to society  and need to be contained.

In both cases they are people and need to be treated as such, within the bounds of reasonable protection to

Read the bolded words.  The difference between a known, certain threat (whichTyphoid Mary willfully ignored which makes her culpable) and a possible threat that's never been quantified (only fear-mongered by the Chantry) is all the difference in the world especially when we know that societies can contain any possible danger without locking away mages (because several do just that).

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Torax wrote...

And what new are you adding to the conversation by mentioning it all? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. it's been a month. Move on really. Even what little bit of new that Polaris started this entire thread with was basically made irrelevent. Just find something new to complain about in the game. If you even still play it.

What's gained from you trying to kick the original poster out of the thread he started, or when you try to order people who have a different opinion than you to discuss something else?