127 réponses à ce sujet

[AshenEndymion]

TJPags wrote...

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.

This.

Though I'm highly skeptical that widespread abuse takes place. I think it's a ploy to gain sympathy, rather than a credible complaint.

Mages aren't people. They are weapons with minds. Anyone who thinks mages are people, needs to ask themselves if Skynet is a person...  Provoking them is not a good thing, but they need to be kept under control.

Modifié par AshenEndemion, 08 avril 2011 - 03:33 .

[Bigdoser]

AshenEndemion wrote...

TJPags wrote...

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.

This.

Though I'm highly skeptical that widespread abuse takes place. I think it's a ploy to gain sympathy, rather than a credible complaint.

Mages aren't people. They are weapons with minds. Anyone who thinks mages are people, needs to ask themselves if Skynet is a person...  Provoking them is not a good thing, but they need to be kept under control.

There is so many things wrong with this statement.

[TJPags]

Bigdoser wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

TJPags wrote...

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.

This.

Though I'm highly skeptical that widespread abuse takes place. I think it's a ploy to gain sympathy, rather than a credible complaint.

Mages aren't people. They are weapons with minds. Anyone who thinks mages are people, needs to ask themselves if Skynet is a person...  Provoking them is not a good thing, but they need to be kept under control.

There is so many things wrong with this statement.

Care to elaborate?

[Asdara]

They're not weapons - they're not mindless tools of destruction just waiting to be picked up by a passing demon.

They are people with more power than a majority of the population has, and that makes them potentially dangerous. In that sense, they are actually very much like the protagonist PC - they are above the normal in ability and if that ability is turned to destruction the death-toll of bystanders from the general population is very high. Turned to good, or at least not utter chaos, we do amazing things and become invaluable. Mages could do the same, if given the chance - but because they are many enough to overwhelm society entirely if they banded together (see Tevinter Imperium) we just can't take that chance.

It doesn't make them weapons though, to say so oversimplifies it grossly.

[PsychoBlonde]

Neither. My attitude toward mages is based on principles, not sympathy. I have sympathy for them only because of my principles, and those haven't changed.

Granted, my sympathy for many of the INDIVIDUAL mages in DA2 was near zero since they were blood-magic-using idiots. But I felt the same about many of the INDIVIDUAL mages in Origins. (Uldred, Avernus, that moron who hid in the closet and was smuggling lyrium, Jowan).

[Gilsa]

Sjofn wrote...

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.

Pretty much this. The Circle wasn't really working the way it was set up, but it was better than nothing. Anders still got punished for what he did, but I ultimately sided with the mages because Meredith's annulment was going too far. (Up to that point, I had been more sympathetic towards the templars.) If you click on one of the templars in Act 3 (in front of the Gallows), he mentions that the Right of Annulment has already been called for. Meredith's wheels were already in motion long before the chantry blew up. This was not something Hawke was going to be able to fix on her own so I dealt with the short-term consequences. Hopefully people like Cullen and others can step up for a better long-term solution. I like how Cullen appeared to be narrow minded in DAO and still showed a lot of growth in seeing the balance that was necessary for the templar/mage conflict.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Back in Origins, the madness seen in the Circle Tower pretty much forced me agree that the Right should be invoked, and thus it was. Looking back on my Warden's initial journey through Ferelden, I daresay that the amount of competent, 'good' mages could be counted on one hand.

Awakening improved their image in my eyes, largely due to Anders and his down to earth attitude. Velanna, I'd consider an elf first and a mage only second. Although she was initially presented as 'insane', I can't say that she wasn't justified in her action, as misled as she was. The Architect wasn't a good example of a standard mage, either, due to obvious reasons.

And then, when DAII was announced, I was certain I would side with the mages this time: how could I not when they were so obviously oppressed? Add to that that my baby sister would be a mage as well, and there was pretty much no way I'd side with the Templars.

And so, about half a year later I started my adventure in Kirkwall pretty much as I thought it would: with me protecting mages from templars whenever I could. Eventually, the events of Act II happened, but my Hawke wasn't about to judge all mages based on a mad man (even though it frustrated me that I couldn't do anything with O's letter).

And thus we arrive at Act III, where ironically a mission given to me by that very same O starts to make me reconsider my stance: the previously hidden third side, where Templars and mages work together to achieve mage freedom, letting me down in such a horrible way. Then Anders happens, and... well, after that there isn't any choice but to side with the Templars.

[Raiil]

Strengthen. I saw what happened as the end consequence of centuries of bad treatment, even though I believe in a lot of cases, it was well-intended. For every end-game Meredith, there's probably a Greagoir.


All DA2 really made me do is question the intelligence of the people in charge. Because if you're going to claim dominion over another human being for their own sake (as they claim), you damn well better know what the hell it is you're doing. Cooping up mages in a known prison used for intimidating slaves, in a place that's so fundamentally scarred that it makes the thaig from the Golems dlc look like happy funland is grounds for dismissal based on general stupidity.


The ones in charge- the Chantry- really should have known better.

Modifié par Valentia X, 08 avril 2011 - 04:07 .

[PsychoBlonde]

AshenEndemion wrote...
Mages aren't people. They are weapons with minds. Anyone who thinks mages are people, needs to ask themselves if Skynet is a person...  Provoking them is not a good thing, but they need to be kept under control.

You may as well say that humans aren't people, they're "animals with minds".  Equally true.  And equally meaningless.  It wouldn't matter if they were TREES with minds, because it's having a mind that operates in a certain way that grants you the need for and thus the right to self-determination.

The fact that Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma Federal Building does not mean that every human on the planet (and ANYONE can do what Timothy McVeigh did, he was not special or unique in any way) NEEDS to be kept under control.  The precise opposite is true, and attempts to keep people under control for their own "good" or someone else's imagined good have always resulted in horrific bloodshed.

[Bigdoser]

I can't side with anyone that is willing to slay every child to adult for the actions of one man and the fact that he was standing right in front of them. I was like come on guys you know what **** it anders help me clean up your bloody mess you are living in the world you created. I am quite happy siding with the mages actually. The things that templars do behind closed doors >_> I mean do you want people who are rapists and templars who are willing to touture and kill a dalish just to find 1 apostate hell no I don't want people like that watching over people who can blow peoples heads off. I hope in DA3 we can introduce a new system to handle mages cause the chantry is **** at the job.

Modifié par Bigdoser, 08 avril 2011 - 04:09 .

[sphinxess]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Back in Origins, the madness seen in the Circle Tower pretty much forced me agree that the Right should be invoked, and thus it was. Looking back on my Warden's initial journey through Ferelden, I daresay that the amount of competent, 'good' mages could be counted on one hand.

Awakening improved their image in my eyes, largely due to Anders and his down to earth attitude. Velanna, I'd consider an elf first and a mage only second. Although she was initially presented as 'insane', I can't say that she wasn't justified in her action, as misled as she was. The Architect wasn't a good example of a standard mage, either, due to obvious reasons.

And then, when DAII was announced, I was certain I would side with the mages this time: how could I not when they were so obviously oppressed? Add to that that my baby sister would be a mage as well, and there was pretty much no way I'd side with the Templars.

And so, about half a year later I started my adventure in Kirkwall pretty much as I thought it would: with me protecting mages from templars whenever I could. Eventually, the events of Act II happened, but my Hawke wasn't about to judge all mages based on a mad man (even though it frustrated me that I couldn't do anything with O's letter).

And thus we arrive at Act III, where ironically a mission given to me by that very same O starts to make me reconsider my stance: the previously hidden third side, where Templars and mages work together to achieve mage freedom, letting me down in such a horrible way. Then Anders happens, and... well, after that there isn't any choice but to side with the Templars.

Sadly the word that got to all the other circles is that a Grey Templar mage bombed the Chantry so they decided to use the Right of Annulment on the circle mages. <and all the circles rebel>

[LobselVith8]

AshenEndemion wrote...

Mages aren't people. They are weapons with minds. Anyone who thinks mages are people, needs to ask themselves if Skynet is a person...  Provoking them is not a good thing, but they need to be kept under control.

I don't see how you can seriously make such a claim. Mages are people. They are humans and elves with the ability to reason, think, and have empathy for others. Even the definition of "people" addresses that mages are, in fact, people:

plural[/i] peoples[/b]  a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized group

[Bigdoser]

I wonder if he considers your frather and bethany weapons.

Modifié par Bigdoser, 08 avril 2011 - 04:18 .

[Avilia]

Weaken, oddly enough. I've argued on these forums that Circles don't work and should be abolished.  That its unfair to lock mages away for something they have no control over.  That the Chant has been misinterpreted and used to support the oppression of mages.

OMG I sounded like Anders ;-)

DA2 did change my sympathies somewhat.  A quick scan of my memory tells me that most of the blood mages we meet during (not at the Circle in Act 3 but during) the game aren't from the Kirkwall Circle.  The Starkhaven mages aren't, Leech isn't, the Tevinter mages certainly aren't.  The mage who kills your mother doesn't seem to be a Circle mage, neither is his apprentice.  Merrill isn't.  That raider mage isn't (sorry can't remember his name).  I'd have to check more carefully to be sure but that's what I recall.

So, then, have they resorted to blood magic out of fear and lack of options?  Or simply because they want the power it will bring them?  The power they can get from demons?

Makes me wonder if Fenris isn't a little bit right.  If mages were free to do as they please, would they in fact use their powers to take over.  Just as they have in Tevinter?

Consequently, by the time I reached the point of having to make a decision, I side with the Templars.  Not so much from an idealogical point of view but a practical one.  Order needs to be maintained and I'm not sure that allowing mages to do as they will is a terribly good idea.

Just my thought processes while playing fwiw.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

Bigdoser wrote...

I wonder if he considers your frather and bethany weapons.

I honestly wouldn't care. The game did little to garner sympathy with either side. Your father is only mentioned in passing and if you're a mage you know Bethany for all of five minutes.

[Bigdoser]

I do not fault anyone for siding with the templars even though I am pro mage but the chantry system does not work and you getting the viscount seat does nothing. Heck the templars killed a viscount cause he did something they did not like. I can't condem a group of people to death for the actions of one man I will fight until last breath to defend that said group.

Modifié par Bigdoser, 08 avril 2011 - 04:34 .

[Andronic0s]

Neither, I think the same I used to think after playing DAO, the mages and templars in this game are too nonsensical, under the infulence of ancient idols in a veil thinned city, I don't extrapolate the actions of the characters in DA2 to the rest of thedas, specially after seeing a better functioning circle in Ferelden

[Foolsfolly]

I think it's weaken my sympathy for mages.

I played Pro-Mage once in DA2. Once.

[AshenEndymion]

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

Mages aren't people. They are weapons with minds. Anyone who thinks mages are people, needs to ask themselves if Skynet is a person...  Provoking them is not a good thing, but they need to be kept under control.

I don't see how you can seriously make such a claim. Mages are people. They are humans and elves with the ability to reason, think, and have empathy for others. Even the definition of "people" addresses that mages are, in fact, people:

plural[/i] peoples[/b]  a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized group

Since the definition of "person" is "a human being, whether man, woman, or child," the definition of "people" wouldn't include elves.  So only half the mages are "people" then... fair enough?

We can play semantics, but I'd prefer not to.  The fact of the matter is that there is no group of people (in the real world) that, from birth, are capable of killing another just by thinking it.  Which is, essentially, what mages can do.  This ability, in itself, makes these "people" not people.  The entire idea of "all men are created equal" is lost if there is a group that can do things, from birth, that others have no chance of doing. 

Because we know that a non-mage cannot cast magic, the two groups (mages and people) are not equal.  And they never will be.  It is this inherent fact that needs to be ingrained into everyone.  And to claim otherwise is an affront to the idea itself.

Now, I am not saying that mages should be treated poorly...  But they shouldn't be given free reign to do what they wish.  They are dangerous, but more than that, they have a potential for danger that a normal person has no chance of achieving.  It is for that reason that mages do not deserve to be let free to roam society at their wims.  They should be, at the very least, segregated from the general public for the protection of all.

Modifié par AshenEndemion, 08 avril 2011 - 04:59 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

AshenEndemion wrote...
Since the definition of "person" is "a human being, whether man, woman, or child," the definition of "people" wouldn't include elves.  So only half the mages are "people" then... fair enough?

......

Replace "human being" with "sentient being", since we are obviously in a different context with multiple sentient species. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 avril 2011 - 05:01 .

[Harcken]

Weakened, WAY weakened. In DA:O, I liked most of the mages I came across; aside from Uldred, they seemed like reasonable people that deserve freedom like any other group of people. In DA2, 99.9% of mages are psychotic sociopaths that will always resort to blood magic or terrorism; they definitely need to be confined/controlled.

[Punahedan]

Strengthened. I guess. More like I understood them and the Templars better. To understand is not to forgive, however as the saying goes.

I've always thought they bore not just great power but also a great burden and responsibility. Aside from being potentially dangerous, they have to live in constant fear of being possessed by a demon. And it is not always easy to tell what's what. How can you trust anyone? Beyond that, even, people fear and hate them for something they did not ask for, and are told their mere existence is a sin or curse. They're people with human (so to speak) limits yet beyond human responsibilities. And they could do much good, but are the risks worth it? There is no mercy for a mage that succumbs, but I can see why they would. DA2 helped me see how fragile it is.

As for Templars, I see their duty as keeping the mages from hurting others... but also protecting the mages. They should be an aid, a source of strength. Ideally, a mage would trust a Templar and a Templar would respect the mage. Any Templar that abuses this trust or shirks his duty also deserves no mercy. Their responsibilities become as much as the mages - but they CHOSE it so they must bear it.

[sonoko]

DA2 definitely strengthen my sympathy for the mages.
In DAO I didn't quite understand reasons behind Uldred's rebellion, despite playing as a blood mage with "freedom for all mages" mentality. Now, after DA2, I know why he did what he did.

However, I pity templars too, not only mages. I believe most of templar recruits start as a nice people, who are just intend to protect innocents from maleficars, but it's the system that turns them into crazy rapists and maniacs, ready to abuse their power.

Both games show that the Circle system is ineffective and corrupt and it must be destroyed.

[Super_Fr33k]

As other people have pointed out, Anders was not after a magocracy. He didn't have a specific system in mind; he just wanted freedom, and a system that does not presume mages are inherently evil.

The game didn't really alter my sympathy level, though it certainly made me put more thought into what an "ideal" solution would be. I thought the Circle was fundamentally flawed in the first game; you cannot expect a person to hold onto their humanity when you dehumanize them. Mages are ripped from their families and denied status, privacy and autonomy. Such a system forces them to internalize that they are not like other people, and magic supersedes anything else they are. Empathy is a powerful regulator -- if mages were respected and relied on to help others, imagine how different they'd be, and how much better they would be.

Sound naive? Sure. But the Dalish make it work really damn well. It works so well, in fact, that even blood magic, which is not evil but makes evil very easy, was not abused when Merrill used it. She wielded blood magic throughout DA2 without becoming evil, all because she was raised to believe magic could help her people. Dalish integrate mages into the collective, elevating them without divorcing them from accountability. Merrill says flat-out that when a Keeper becomes an abomination, the clan will slay him or her. How better to monitor mages than in plain sight?

The inability to regulate magic among human societies shows the corruption and inequality that permeate them. How many evil people do you find in Kirkwall and Denerim? There are countless violent, murderous criminals everywhere, coupled with the desperation of extreme poverty. Mages are driven to vile behaviors just as every other oppressed human or elf is. Rampant blood magic and abominations are symptoms of a larger, non-magical problem.

The Dalish are proof there's a better way. What DA2 made me realize was a more open system could not only be more just and better use magic to help people, but that it can also help monitor mages in plain sight, rather than driving them into hiding where succumbing to evil is more likely.

[Cutlass Jack]

Weaken. Because every time I backed a mage, it bit me in the ass. They killed and kidnapped my family. They turned into Abominations and attacked me, you name it. And that was on my pro-mage playthrough.

Samson says it best in Act 3. He's never once seen a mage resist resorting to blood magic once things get the slightest bit difficult.

The only two mages that wasn't true for was Bethany and Emile (the later of which lies about being a Blood mage to pick up chicks)