127 réponses à ce sujet

[kimbabini]

It's hard to say but I'M GONNA TRY ANYWAYS HERE.
I felt nothing but respect and sympathy for mages in the first game and thought the circle was kind of hard to justify. Until this game. Cause I was naive and such I suppose. I would say it strengthened it, though, because their plight is far more difficult than I thought. The circle can be justified in the same sentence calling it cruel lololololo good wording terytguy897wesru. It's overwhelming I have a lot to say and I can't even continue at this point

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

I learned mages stab you in the back, templars stab you from the front.

And the cure for mage repression is to become the lead protagonist in a Bioware title.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Not going to go on about the first part of the post. Too touchy. 

Deified Data wrote...
Edit: FYI, I'm basing my current Hawke on Xanatos.

Awesome! Physically as well?
Goatees in DA2 kind of suck, but maybe Thrask's beard might work.

Now I imagine Johnathan Frakes voicing manHawke.

Since Hawke ends up being pretty much of a failure, with no opportunity to be a magnificient bastard, I am glad Johnathan Frakes is not voicing him.

[Mnemnosyne]

Neither, really.  I pretty much feel the same as I did before, with the addendum of 'do not put mage circles on top of hellmouths' (which really aught to be pretty obvious but hey, apparently not to the chantry).

Anders didn't really want to replace civilization with a magocracy - he wanted mages to be free like everyone else, but he didn't really have a plan or coherent line of events that would lead to that.  So he took the only action he could think of, to try to start a war in the hopes that the end result would be better than the current situation.  And while I agree with his general motivation, everything else about his actions leaves a lot to be desired.

Sympathizing with the plight of the oppressed and downtrodden may be part of my line of thinking, but what I really think about is how I think the world would be better, in general.  And magic, it seems to me, is much like technology in that the more of it is available the better things are for everyone in the long run.  Mages being free means that if I'm a mage, I am free.  Even if I'm not a mage though, it means that if I get, say, impaled on my own pitchfork, there's a bit higher chance that I might live through the experience than if mages were all locked away in the Circle.  Cause if mages are free, then maybe there's a mage in my village that is helpful and might heal me.  The benefits of magic seem to me to clearly outweigh the risks when used responsibly.

The answer to me is clearly to expand the training to counteract them, make sure they are reasonably well trained and then loosely monitored.  Keep in mind also that if mages are free and all over, then if one of them goes nuts there may be several others around to help contain him.

As far as sympathy for Kelder, that's also a matter of what is feasible within the setting.  There is no psychiatric treatment that may help, not in the setting of Thedas.  No drugs or anti-psychotic medication.  If a person cannot master their own mind through nothing more than their own willpower, then there's only locking him away in a cell forever.  I personally consider that to be a far worse fate than death, being forever confined, so killing him was pragmatic in that it's the only way to be sure he doesn't kill again, as well as merciful in that it's better than being locked up for the rest of his life.  Even if one disagrees with the idea that being confined for life is worse than death, the situation with Kelder doesn't present that choice: his father will get him freed and he will kill again, so there is no other option than to kill him, since the game doesn't give us an option to do something about the father (to my knowledge).

I also don't see the situations as the same.  Mages are not automatically insane - they have to deal with resisting demons, but this is something that it's clear is entirely possible, since there are thousands, possibly tens or hundreds of thousands of mages who live their entire lives and never become abominations, and it's not because they're locked up in Circles - after all, physical location, other than sitting on hellmouths, isn't really relevant to demons' ability to attempt to influence a mage.

So, DA2 didn't really alter my position on mages.  I still think the Circles are a terrible system that needs to be completely overhauled at best, that the Chantry needs to be either completely eliminated or at minimum prevented from spreading the idea that magic is a sin and mages are some horrible danger, that mages need to be overseen by reasonable laws, not pre-emptive imprisonment.

If anything it strengthened my sympathy for them since we could clearly see that even in a city as plagued by abominations as Kirkwall, for the average citizen, life went on.  Abominations aren't a world-shattering threat if you can have a couple dozen of them popping up in every third back alley in the city, and yet life goes on.

[Peer of the Empire]

Weaken

[sphinxess]

Before: Not a system I was happy with but I agreed with the part that children without training were a danger to everyone around them. So kinda a supporter of the circle but wanting some changes.

Now: I have total hate for the Chantry from the Divine herself on down. The sole exception being if a Grand Cleric splits from Orlais and modifys the chant in ways that make mages no longer called cursed. Will support any ruler that wants to create a training center for mages but no more Templar oversite - mages will watch over mages.

Strengthened

Modifié par sphinxess, 08 avril 2011 - 01:24 .

[Amagoi]

It's a little odd for me, DA2 reversed a lot of my opinions about mages. In Origins, I belived the Circle was the right thing to do. It wasn't a perfect solution, but it was a really good one. If mages were dangerous, it was the apostates that you had to watch out for. They seemed more likely to be blood mages, or just very unlikely to use their powers in a beneficial manner for others.

After playing DA2, I'm not sure how I feel about the Circles. I think the Templar order should be kept, though mages policing themselves would be more efficient. I'm sure there would be some mages out there that were like my Hawke, who was an apostate that absolutely hated blood magic. Though there's plenty of factors in why the Kirkwall Circle failed so epicly, I think Orsino had quite a bit to do with it.

It could just be that the whole power structure of the K.C. was messed up. With Irving, a lot of the Ferelden mages fought against blood mages and abominations. So many that they were able to still assist in the Blight if you chose to save them. Orsino was a blood mage, so it's possible there was an entire structure of blood mage teaching and support inside the Circle. Which would mean the Templars didn't do their job all that well for a long time.

As for apostates, it seems to me now that if they have the willpower to remain free and use their power wisely enough to not be caught by the Templars, then they're not going to be into blood magic. I'm a lot less sympathetic to mages on the whole, just more supportive of apostates.

[Crossroads_Wanderer]

 

Deified Data wrote...
Encounter after encounter saw every mage resort to blood magic to serve their ends, whether it be self defense or mere sadistic glee. I went into DAII expecting to support the mages, and did so for the vast majority of the game...until the true unbalance began to manifest itself. Mages were proving time and time again that they abuse their freedom, or would do so if given the opportunity. Most of them wanted their freedom, but some, like Tahrone and Anders, wanted more: to destroy civilization and replace it with a new magocracy. The moderates among the mages were either killed, tranquilized, or recruited by the blood mages. Anders said "There is no room for compromise", and meant it. The world would either be for mages, or they would all be dead.

The representation of blood mages was skewed. You're interacting primarily with those who do choose to do bad things because you're playing the good guy going around fixing problems. I'm sure there are plenty of other mages in Kirkwall who haven't resorted to blood magic. 

Further, while Kirkwall may have been swarming with blood mages, Fereldan wasn't. Clearly, there isn't some sort of innate corrupting influence of having magic, because we would have seen more blood mages in Fereldan. While I haven't found it in my game, I've heard around the forums that you can find out that there is something special about Kirkwall that makes it tend to corrupt mages. I don't really know much beyond that, though.

The Western world sympathizes heavily with the plight of the oppressed and down-trodden. It's the "underdog" effect. We invariably choose the side of personal liberty over oppression, and I think this personal inclination is what led me to initially side with the mages. I saw an oppressed people, and my heroic inclination was to free them. Now, though, I'm not so sure. Cullen's right - mages aren't people like you or I. They're walking timebombs, some more volatile than others. They can't always help being possessed - it's not always a choice they can make.

They may be dangerous people, but they're still people. And how does possession sometimes being involuntary make it right to oppress mages? If it's involuntary, that just gives all the more reason for mages not to be oppressed because they aren't choosing to do wrong. You draw a good comparison in the form of the mentally insane.

I think there is a good conversation between Anders and Fenris about the danger of mages; to paraphrase, Fenris is asking Anders if he thinks he's harmless as an abomination and Anders brings up Fenris ripping a guy's heart out. Fenris says that a demon didn't make him do that and Anders points out that it doesn't take a demon for people to do violent things. Mages may be dangerous, but everyone is potentially dangerous. Anyone can do wrong, it doesn't just happen when people are possessed by demons.

Consider this example: A group of people, susceptile to evil suggestion, who cannot always help committing great atrocities when allowed to run free. They say they're beyond temptation, and some of them are, but the rest...? There's no way of knowing until something horrible happens.

Pedophiles/sociopaths/serial killers, right? Say an individual is born with a predaliction for that sort of thing, a mental illness. Do we allow them to be free, even though it's "not their fault" they were born that way? If a psychotic individual gets well under the effects of medication, he may eventually be released. Sometimes, they simply stop taking the medication - it happens all the time. The demon/psychosis was simply too powerful to resist alone.

There is no way of knowing when it will happen or whom it will happen to, which is why they can't all be treated poorly for it. To do so would be to condone harm to innocents in favor of the supposed greater good, but isn't the greater good about protecting the innocents from harm?

And people born with mental illness are given the benefit of the doubt in the Western world. You can't punish someone for something they haven't done because the purpose of punishment is to deter future harmful behaviors. The mentally ill are unable to be deterred in this manner, but they are also unable to control themselves, and therefore, not responsible for their actions. The only moral way to handle someone who is truly mentally ill is to try to treat the illness, but, until that person does harm, you can't even force him/her into treatment because some people are able to control themselves and don't need it. Pretty much every ethical theory, including that which the governments of the Western world run under, says the same thing: that mental illness absolves one of responsibility.

If you would have the government locking up people for things they could potentially do, you're talking about a fast track to charging people with thoughtcrime. Everyone occassionally has thoughts that would be considered socially unacceptable, that doesn't mean that everyone acts on those thoughts. In the same way, mages have the potential to become abominations, but not all of them do. Probably the majority of them don't.

I don't mean to offend by comparing sensitive real-world issues with a fantasy setting, but the comparison begs to be made. Where is all the sypathy for the mage Kelder, who kidnapped elven children for being "too beautiful"? He claims he was demon-possessed, but in fact he was psychotic. I'm sure most of you ended up killing him, right? He deserved to die for being born that way? Is being a psychotic worse than being a mage, or vice versa, when both are conditions that are present since birth, and cannot be remedied?

I'll make no judgement yet. Discuss.

I didn't kill Kelder (not the first time, anyway; I decided to play a somewhat less ethical character in my second run). He didn't invite demons to possess him and he wasn't a threat; he was simply a mentally ill man, unable to control his urges. The legal system in Thedas isn't designed well to handle the mentally ill and his father seems to have been slightly corrupt, but letting him live was to only ethical option my character had.

DA2 definitely strengthened my sympathy toward the mages. The Fereldan Circle seemed to be treated relatively well, even if it was a gilded cage, but the injustices done to the mages in Kirkwall show that the templars don't really have anything stopping them from doing terrible things to the mages, that the only thing stopping them is basically the goodness of their own hearts. Clearly, there isn't a lot of goodness in the hearts of the Kirkwall templars. I think its wrong for people to have that kind of unrestricted power over others. Particularly when they are religious zealots who might rely on dogma when they should be relying on rationality.

Modifié par Crossroads_Wanderer, 08 avril 2011 - 02:09 .

[Sesshomaru47]

Rifneno wrote...

Sesshomaru47 wrote...

I was all for the Mages until Anders decided he would blow up a church full of people killing them and probably countless others who got caught in the debris field. Whoever said that it would be a natural decision for the gamer to side with the mages hasn't been watching much in the way of current world affairs...The mages can go stuff themselves. I should note that I played as a mage...

So because one man killed a bunch of innocents, you want to kill a much bigger group of innocents.  Yeah, that totally makes sense.

As for the original question, I didn't really have any in DAO.  I should have, but I didn't really put any throught into their situation.  I was too enthralled with the main focuses of the story.

Yes they were so innocent when I went in there and the First Enchanter turned into a Flesh Golem not too mention the other Blood Mages you fight in and along the way to get to him and all the demons. Yeah they were as innocent as cute little bunnies and kittens. Demonic ones...

[Emperor Iaius I]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Strengthen. Definitely strengthen.

The thing is that while both sides in Kirkwall are utterly nuts, the mages' crazy is born of desperation and basically being backed into a corner. The templars' crazy is born of systematic oppression, prejudice, and hate. Though I thought they were all crazypants by the end, I have a lot more sympathy for the mages' reasons for growing violent than I do for the templars.

This.

ladyluck posted


Born of desperation??? My mage is awesome without using blood magic. The mages in this episode lost their integrity when they used the templars as an EXCUSE to go to blood magic. Why couldn't they have done it where there was a group of mages that would come to the support of hawke that didn't use blood magic. Yes i hate the templars even more but to me that is NO excuse to turn to blood magic. They can be very powerful in a group without blood magic. Even the first enchanter used it and turned on us when we helped him against the templars.

Your mage hasn't been locked up, abused, and tortured. They were beyond the brink of insanity.

As far as "turning to blood magic"--what? You think they rationally decided they were just going to use blood magic and the templars were a convenient justification for it?

[LobselVith8]

Deified Data wrote...

Just curious.

Strengthened. My apostate Hawke encountered a tyranny where the Knight-Commander became the de facto Viscount and governed a dictatorship over Kirkwall, mages were being raped, templars tortured a len (child) hunter of the Dalish, mages were being made tranquil illegally, and the Right of Annulment was declared on the Kirkwall Circle for an act no Circle mage had anything to do with.

The Circles of Magi rising up and emancipating themselves from Chantry control, with Hawke as a heroic symbol and the Surana Warden who asked for the Magi boon helping the movement along several years prior, was the end result of my apostate's tale.

Deified Data wrote...

Encounter after encounter saw every mage resort to blood magic to serve their ends, whether it be self defense or mere sadistic glee. I went into DAII expecting to support the mages, and did so for the vast majority of the game...until the true unbalance began to manifest itself. Mages were proving time and time again that they abuse their freedom, or would do so if given the opportunity. Most of them wanted their freedom, but some, like Tahrone and Anders, wanted more: to destroy civilization and replace it with a new magocracy. The moderates among the mages were either killed, tranquilized, or recruited by the blood mages. Anders said "There is no room for compromise", and meant it. The world would either be for mages, or they would all be dead.

Anders saw the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery, and he repeats that phrase numerous times to the point where I get the impression his idea of no compromise was "better to die on your feet than live on your knees." Honestly, I don't think he wanted a magocracy - he simply wanted mages to be free from the Chantry and the Order of Templars.

Whether the Chantry controlled Circles are necessary is a debate no one on these forums has agreed on - it's been a dispute since DA:O, and it'll likely continue to be a dispute until the end of the DA franchise. Personally, I disagree with the Chantry controlled Circles. So did my canon Warden from the Surana background. So did my apostate Hawke. So did Morrigan and Merrill.

Deified Data wrote...

Cullen's right - mages aren't people like you or I. They're walking timebombs, some more volatile than others. They can't always help being possessed - it's not always a choice they can make.

Cullen's actual words are: "Mages are weapons. They aren't people like you and me."

Frak Cullen.

[Icy Magebane]

I'd say that I'm now more in favor of the Circle than I was when I played DA:O. My canon Warden was a maleficar, but even he wouldn't want all mages to be free... seems like too much competition. Too much potential for things to go wrong. It's better to have a strict system to control mages so that things don't fall to anarchy, or worse, so that another Imperium doesn't rise. Obviously he would not submit to such a system, but that's one of the perks of being a mage in the Grey Wardens...

After playing DA2 as a mage and warrior, my conclusions were pretty much the same... freedom for all mages would only lead to more maleficarum. That's not an idea I can get behind. If anything, the Templars need better internal policing, so that the abuses in Kirkwall never happen again. That situation got way out of control, but freedom for mages isn't the answer.

[Emperor Iaius I]

Destroy civilization and replace it with a magocracy? The magocracy IS civilization: the Tevinter Imperium was the original human civilization, and the unwashed barbarian hordes tore it down. Even now they raise statues to their maker's trollop.

[Huntress]

The mages don't turn evil or to blood magic just because they can, is to scape a regime that oppress them!!! there are evil people and good people everywere, but the good people died/is turned tranquil earlier thats why you see so few good mages in the hole game.
And to anyone thinking, "my mage never used blood magic", is because your mage have never have been in that situation, yes, I too played circle mage warden, she never saw anything like kirkwall mages.

The pedophile dies in my game 100% of the time, he uses " demon" as a scape root, to explain his sickness and perhaps gain some simpathy from you.

Blood magic is the only magic a templar cant counter attack, keep that on mind, does it corrupt the mages? perhaps, but is a lose/ lose situation, why die without giving your best shot at it?

[Halo Quea]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Strengthen. Definitely strengthen.

The thing is that while both sides in Kirkwall are utterly nuts, the mages' crazy is born of desperation and basically being backed into a corner. The templars' crazy is born of systematic oppression, prejudice, and hate. Though I thought they were all crazypants by the end, I have a lot more sympathy for the mages' reasons for growing violent than I do for the templars.

This.

ladyluck posted


Born of desperation??? My mage is awesome without using blood magic. The mages in this episode lost their integrity when they used the templars as an EXCUSE to go to blood magic. Why couldn't they have done it where there was a group of mages that would come to the support of hawke that didn't use blood magic. Yes i hate the templars even more but to me that is NO excuse to turn to blood magic. They can be very powerful in a group without blood magic. Even the first enchanter used it and turned on us when we helped him against the templars.

Your mage hasn't been locked up, abused, and tortured.

Well that's the REAL issue, Mage Hawke hasn't shared in any of the trials and tribulations of the mages in the Circle.  Hawke SHOULD have been arrested and locked in the Gallows.  Hawke SHOULD have been tempted by demons from the Fade, and based on the gamer's decisions would have chosen blood magic/abominations for him/herself.

Hawke probably should have also had the option to ally with a good spirit if only to show that a Mage can make this connection without being corrupted or corrupting a good spirit.   But no such options are provided and Hawke as a Mage really behaves like an executioner more than an activist or rebel.   Despite what the narrative wants us to believe, Mage Hawke isn't a light or a guide for any of the mages in Kirkwall.

You've heard the phrase, "Walk a mile in my shoes first" 

Because Hawke is spared all of the hardships that mages in the Circle of Kirkwall goes through,  there is a real disconnect with the gamer.   It's easy for them to stab Anders, or even side with the Templars because they have no personal experiences inside the Circle to draw from.   Had gamers gone through that, I'm sure you would see alot more sympathy for the mages in these types of discussions.

[Tainan7509]

I don't know why.. but i got a feeling with both weaken and strengthen at the same time. :\\

[Icy Magebane]

I agree with Halo Quea... the Mage Hawke experience tends to be rather shallow. You are always working from second-hand information and it's up to the player to make a judgment without ever being inside the Gallows. You have Anders the extremist and Fenris the other extremist chirping in your ears, and some examples of extremely corrupt/dangerous mages and Templars. Hell, you don't even get tempted by demons and just take the blood mage spec with no consequences or trials leading up to it...

If you were arrested day one as a mage, that would have made the experience so much deeper....

[Sjofn]

DA2 weakened my sympathy for mages, which is funny given I heart Anders and have yet to side with the Templars in the end. In DA:O I thought the Circle was probably not the best solution, but at the same time I didn't care that much because I never played a mage, so it wasn't really a big deal. So I was mostly "meh" about the whole thing, with a side of "apostates probably get a worse rap than they deserve."

In DA2, while I still feel bad for the mages and feel the Circle is a flawed way of dealing with it that needed to change, I absolutely get why Mages Can't Have Nice Things. So actually, I guess it didn't so much weaken my sympathy for mages as it strengthened my sympathy for the templars. Yes, there are Ser Alriks, and there needed to be a better safeguard against dicks like that, but there are also Ser Thrasks, who are pretty much what I consider the ideal templar: aware they have an important job to protect regular people, but also aware that mages are people too.

[Plaintiff]

Deified Data wrote...

Encounter after encounter saw every mage resort to blood magic to serve their ends, whether it be self defense or mere sadistic glee. I went into DAII expecting to support the mages, and did so for the vast majority of the game...until the true unbalance began to manifest itself. Mages were proving time and time again that they abuse their freedom, or would do so if given the opportunity.

Those mages are obviously a minority. You don't see the ones who behave themselves because they're all in The Gallows, behaving themselves. Hawke only gets called in when there's a crisis. Furthermore, mages only resort to these techniques because the templars drive them to desperation. If mages weren't treated like ****, they'd have no reason to turn to blood magic in the first place. 

Most of them wanted their freedom, but some, like Tahrone and Anders, wanted more: to destroy civilization and replace it with a new magocracy. The moderates among the mages were either killed, tranquilized, or recruited by the blood mages. Anders said "There is no room for compromise", and meant it. The world would either be for mages, or they would all be dead.

I think you've misinterpreted Ander's character entirely. He does not wish for mages to rule, he merely wants the same freedoms as any man. When he says there is 'no compromise', he did indeed mean it, but the lack of compromise is not his fault. The Chantry is to blame for subjugating mages and refusing to listen to sound, well-reasoned arguments, constantly retreating behind a shield of 'divine right' bs. Mages will never be free while the Chantry holds power over them. It's all very well to write manifestos and help fleeing mages get to out of Kirkwall, but things were going to have to come to a head sooner or later.

Remember that Anders is possessed by a spirit of Justice, who would no more support the tyranny of mages than the tyranny of the Chantry. Anders openly expresses disgust for blood magic and blames the mages who resort to it for reinforcing the Chantry's prejudice.

The Western world sympathizes heavily with the plight of the oppressed and down-trodden. It's the "underdog" effect. We invariably choose the side of personal liberty over oppression, and I think this personal inclination is what led me to initially side with the mages. I saw an oppressed people, and my heroic inclination was to free them. Now, though, I'm not so sure. Cullen's right - mages aren't people like you or I. They're walking timebombs, some more volatile than others. They can't always help being possessed - it's not always a choice they can make.

Actually, they are people, just like you and me. They have the same wants and needs of any man. Locking them up doesn't save them from becoming abominations, training them to control their powers is what helps that. But the templars, Meredith especially, seem less concerned with the wellbeing of their charges and show a disturbing inclination to execute them out of hand.

Consider this example: A group of people, susceptile to evil suggestion, who cannot always help committing great atrocities when allowed to run free. They say they're beyond temptation, and some of them are, but the rest...? There's no way of knowing until something horrible happens.

You're right, there is no way of knowing until something bad happens. And that is just a risk that we have to take. There is no such thing as pre-emptive punishment. We don't lock people up because they might commit a crime. If we did that, then we'd have to arrest everybody because the capability for criminal activity is not soley the domain of the mentally ill. Similarly, it is wrong to lock up mages for what they might become.

Pedophiles/sociopaths/serial killers, right? Say an individual is born with a predaliction for that sort of thing, a mental illness. Do we allow them to be free, even though it's "not their fault" they were born that way? If a psychotic individual gets well under the effects of medication, he may eventually be released. Sometimes, they simply stop taking the medication - it happens all the time. The demon/psychosis was simply too powerful to resist alone.

You can't punish people for feeling a certain way, you can only punish them for their actions. Let's take, for instance, your example of pedophiles. Pedophilia is merely the presence of a desire, not a crime in and of itself.  Child molestation, the act of taking sexual advantage of a child, is a crime and perpetrators are duly punished. Similarly, we do not punish people merely for wanting to steal or kill, we punish them for actually doing it.

I don't mean to offend by comparing sensitive real-world issues with a fantasy setting, but the comparison begs to be made. Where is all the sypathy for the mage Kelder, who kidnapped elven children for being "too beautiful"? He claims he was demon-possessed, but in fact he was psychotic. I'm sure most of you ended up killing him, right? He deserved to die for being born that way? Is being a psychotic worse than being a mage, or vice versa, when both are conditions that are present since birth, and cannot be remedied?

Kelder was not a mage, and he wanted to die. He was tormented by his actions and hated himself for them. Killing him isn't a punishment, it's an act of mercy.

In case you can't tell, my sympathy for mages was very much strengthened. I consider the Chantry to be a cancer on Thedas and I think its elimination would be best for everyone, not just mages.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 08 avril 2011 - 03:21 .

[Icy Magebane]

Plaintiff wrote...

Deified Data wrote...

Encounter after encounter saw every mage resort to blood magic to serve their ends, whether it be self defense or mere sadistic glee. I went into DAII expecting to support the mages, and did so for the vast majority of the game...until the true unbalance began to manifest itself. Mages were proving time and time again that they abuse their freedom, or would do so if given the opportunity.

Those mages are obviously a minority. You don't see the ones who behave themselves because they're all in The Gallows, behaving themselves. Hawke only gets called in when there's a crisis. Furthermore, mages only resort to these techniques because the templars drive them to desperation. If mages weren't treated like ****, they'd have no reason to turn to blood magic in the first place.

I think you might be giving humanity too much credit.  I mean, as far as I know, there are a lot of people who abuse power, even without magic... so saying that desperation and oppression are the only reasons why mages would turn to blood magic is... well, let's call it "wishful thinking."  Mages can be evil, just like anybody else.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

Definitely strengthened. The more devs try to turn mages into chaotic stupid force, the more I want to play a mage character who would set things right.

Modifié par DamnThoseDisplayNames, 08 avril 2011 - 03:27 .

[TJPags]

I have no "sympathy" for mages. At all.

They're dangerous. They're not always treated so poorly. They might eveb be treated worse in the real world.

Now, I have sympathy for any mage who is abused. But for mages in general? None.

And if anything, DA2 made me more firm in my conviction that they all need to be locked up.

[lazuli]

It probably would have strengthened my sympathy were it not for the fact that basically every mage in DA2 is a complete and utter moron.

[Asdara]

I still believe in good mages who could live free and never have a problem functioning in society with no ill effects.

Fewer than I had hoped at first, perhaps... and the mages who didn't qualify for that needed to be kept safe, just like the Chantry says: for their own protection as well as ours.

Then again, how do we ever really know if a mage is one or the other? What is the test? Not the Harrowing / Tranquility standard in place now - too many blood mages and abominations from the population of Harrowed mages across both games for that to be valid. Is it how nice they are? How nice they pretend to be to get out of arm's reach? Old and trusted, like Wynne and Irving were? Seems like it would be a disservice to take them out of the system once they were institutionalized. How many years of watching until we could be sure they would be the stable, good, safe mages?

It's very complicated.

I'm sympathetic, but when I'm supposed to be the hero, I also need to be pragmatic. Idealism will get you eaten by Flemeth.

[lockdown51]

I never had much sympathy for the mages. I saw their situation as status quo and necessary due to them having too much power at their finger tips. Even the Dalish know about the dangers of magic and had their own way of dealing with it. Fortunately for Elves, they don't seem to have a lot of mages among them. Event he Grey Wardens have to have some sort of fail safe or back up plan for if their mages get possessed.

I gained a little sympathy due to the Hawkes being apostates. They obviously taught Bethany well but she still should have been in a circle. I also had some sympathy for the Hawkes mostly to protect Bethany, cause that is what big brothers do.

However, everyone being a bloodmage, or becoming one at the slightest excuse made me in favor of Annulling the Circle, sparing only Bethany. The over use of blood mages just completely turned me away from them and had me happily killing them all. Anders' lil stunt just solidified my position against mages. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to have lives, but it should be earn privileges.

I want to note that all the mages were just too stupid to live anyway. If you watch the cinematic of the templar charging the mages, the mages wait until the templar are already hacking them to bits before they use RANGED SPELLS like fire and ice. Any half way smart person, who doens't even play games like DA2, will tell you that you start to attack once enemies are at the edge of your range. You don't wait until they are in melee. Gene pools needs thinning out.