132 réponses à ce sujet

[Torax]

shantisands wrote...

Anullment does not necessarily mean 100% death, does it? If the mages surrendered, technically the templars could imprison them until their threat level was determined.

I did hear them speak of the age of 12 as an age where mages come into power, so it is unlikely young children, younger than 12 anyway, would be considered a magical threat anyway until they "come of age".

Some went to the circle at ages of like 6-7. Which means they had to at least show some magical talent before the age 12. How much control and ability they would display at that age is unknown.

[_Aine_]

Torax wrote...

shantisands wrote...

Anullment does not necessarily mean 100% death, does it? If the mages surrendered, technically the templars could imprison them until their threat level was determined.

I did hear them speak of the age of 12 as an age where mages come into power, so it is unlikely young children, younger than 12 anyway, would be considered a magical threat anyway until they "come of age".

Some went to the circle at ages of like 6-7. Which means they had to at least show some magical talent before the age 12. How much control and ability they would display at that age is unknown.

I was confused by that too.  Like, why 12??  I actually would like to know. It was in DA2 it was said, but for the life of me I can't remember by who, or even why!

[thesuperdarkone]

shantisands wrote...

Torax wrote...

shantisands wrote...

Anullment does not necessarily mean 100% death, does it? If the mages surrendered, technically the templars could imprison them until their threat level was determined.

I did hear them speak of the age of 12 as an age where mages come into power, so it is unlikely young children, younger than 12 anyway, would be considered a magical threat anyway until they "come of age".

Some went to the circle at ages of like 6-7. Which means they had to at least show some magical talent before the age 12. How much control and ability they would display at that age is unknown.

I was confused by that too.  Like, why 12??  I actually would like to know. It was in DA2 it was said, but for the life of me I can't remember by who, or even why!

 

I assume that at 12 a person would at least have some common sense of what not to do and could be more mature in studying than a younger child. Just my guess.

[erilben]

shantisands wrote...

Torax wrote...

shantisands wrote...

Anullment does not necessarily mean 100% death, does it? If the mages surrendered, technically the templars could imprison them until their threat level was determined.

I did hear them speak of the age of 12 as an age where mages come into power, so it is unlikely young children, younger than 12 anyway, would be considered a magical threat anyway until they "come of age".

Some went to the circle at ages of like 6-7. Which means they had to at least show some magical talent before the age 12. How much control and ability they would display at that age is unknown.

I was confused by that too.  Like, why 12??  I actually would like to know. It was in DA2 it was said, but for the life of me I can't remember by who, or even why!

Really? That doesn't makes sense with what was said before. Jowan went to the Circle at 5. Wynne at 9. Emile at 6. Anders as a teenager, but that was said to be unusual and that mages usually go to the circle at a young age. Even the Warden mage PC was said to be so young in order not to remember the blood taken for the phylactery.

Modifié par erilben, 13 avril 2011 - 12:42 .

[_Aine_]

erilben wrote...

shantisands wrote...

Torax wrote...

shantisands wrote...

Anullment does not necessarily mean 100% death, does it? If the mages surrendered, technically the templars could imprison them until their threat level was determined.

I did hear them speak of the age of 12 as an age where mages come into power, so it is unlikely young children, younger than 12 anyway, would be considered a magical threat anyway until they "come of age".

Some went to the circle at ages of like 6-7. Which means they had to at least show some magical talent before the age 12. How much control and ability they would display at that age is unknown.

I was confused by that too.  Like, why 12??  I actually would like to know. It was in DA2 it was said, but for the life of me I can't remember by who, or even why!

Really? That doesn't makes sense with what was said before. Jowan went to the Circle at 5. Wynne at 9. Emile at 6. Anders as a teenager, but that was said to be unusual and that mages usually go to the circle at a young age. Even the Warden mage PC was said to be so young in order not to remember the blood taken for the phylactery.

I am guessing, and I mean REALLY guessing, that it has to do with a power-strength thing rather than a power-obvious thing.  you may show the skills as an infant, but not have the control or full manifestation until some arbitrary year like 12 for a reason I dont know.... but still.  Perhaps they have magical puberty where their magic cracks, their demons fill in and suddenly their skills becomes ripe and dangerous     I don't know.  Now I am going to have to find that spot in the game. If this ends up some weird templar dream that my brain has mis-classified to a game I am going to be really upset. lol  (but really, I think they did give the age 12 as a "coming of age" thing. )

[Ryzaki]

I don't think so. Was Conner 12? He seemed younger than that to me.

That said I'm pretty sure the children that didn't escape were killed.

If you save after killing Orsino on the templar ending the text box will tell you the Rite was finished. And the Rite is about killing all the mages.

So Hawke didn't kill any kids. That didn't stop the templars from doing it.

[Vicious]

It's at the Knight-Commander's discretion.