Can you really relate gameplay mechanics to story mechanics, though? During the story, routinely, powerful characters and classes are one shotted.
Hell, look at the big battle scene at the end of the game. Templars are being killed, burned, frozen in one shot. Mages are being stabbed and run-through and beaten to death, again in one shot. Any one of those classes would take a lot of effort to bring down during normal gameplay.
So yeah, in gameplay Abominations aren't the horrific demi-gods they are, but that's gameplay. It just doesn't relate to the story.
Mages vs. everyone else
Débuté par
Hhoal
, avril 11 2011 12:45
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 11 avril 2011 - 06:20
Dean_the_Young
-
- Members
- 20 684 messages
The literal chantry doctrine is pretty ambiguous: 'magic exists to serve man, not rule him.' How that is used and viewed varies by person... just as the view of magic itself varies by person. The Chantry 'encourages' people to hate mages in the same sense that it encourages them not to: it has a doctrine that recognizes that, yes, mages are dangerous, and puts in place a system with the intent of protecting the people from the mages and the mages from the people. It's not a perfect system by any means, and can be improved, but it's flaws are not inherent or dependent on the Chantry itself.TricksterPuppet wrote...
I was just mentioning that Isolde is scared of her son being hated just because he is a mage. Even if the mages pre-Chantry are the cause of most of the hate against mages, many people in the Chantry encourage that hate on the newer generation of mages who weren't born when the Tevinter Empirium ruled. I'm not for or against the Chantry. I just believe that the Chantry is to strict on mages.
Yes, Isolde is angry, fearful, and ashamed about her son being a mage. But one can't simply rest on an assumption that, if it weren't for the Chantry, her son would face no such stigma, and so that by replacing the Chantry the problem is removed.
#53
Posté 11 avril 2011 - 06:50
Camenae
-
- Members
- 825 messages
Here's what I see from reading this and other similar threads:
People who are pro-Mage-freedom either played a Mage or identify themselves with the mages in another way, such as if they could really be in Thedas they would hope they'd be mages, or they think they're likely to be a mage (perhaps because they are a member of a minority group) or something like that.
People who are more pro-Templar, or at least, pro-"keeping mages under some form of control," think of themselves as, or otherwise identify with, the "normal" person, the Muggles, those without magic.
When I look at it that way, it suddenly turns into people doing what we've always done, advocating for our OWN rights.
People who are pro-Mage-freedom either played a Mage or identify themselves with the mages in another way, such as if they could really be in Thedas they would hope they'd be mages, or they think they're likely to be a mage (perhaps because they are a member of a minority group) or something like that.
People who are more pro-Templar, or at least, pro-"keeping mages under some form of control," think of themselves as, or otherwise identify with, the "normal" person, the Muggles, those without magic.
When I look at it that way, it suddenly turns into people doing what we've always done, advocating for our OWN rights.
#54
Posté 11 avril 2011 - 06:51
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
TricksterPuppet wrote...
I was just mentioning that Isolde is scared of her son being hated just because he is a mage. Even if the mages pre-Chantry are the cause of most of the hate against mages, many people in the Chantry encourage that hate on the newer generation of mages who weren't born when the Tevinter Empirium ruled. I'm not for or against the Chantry. I just believe that the Chantry is to strict on mages.
I think the Chantry plays a signficant part in Isolde's views on mages, and how she responds to the fact that her son is a mage by hiring an apostate to teach her son not to be one. We know mages are treated differently in non-Andrastian societies like the Chasind Wilders, the Avvar tribes, the Dalish clans, and in the kingdom of Rivain, so it's clear that the difference in treatment has a lot to do with the religious teachings of the Chantry of Andraste.
#55
Posté 11 avril 2011 - 10:18
Darkhour
-
- Members
- 1 484 messages
Rockpopple wrote...
I dunno... abominations are pretty tough in this game. I can see regular folks/guards/knights having a difficult time with even 1 of them.
They are as weak as shades. The only thing that makes them slightly tougher is that their punches are automatic super knockbacks for non-warriors. But if you're a mage or rogue who tries to go toe-to-toe with anything in this game you clearly have no understanding of the mechanics. That's one thing I couldn't stand about DA2. Any joe schmoe dagger fodder can beat you up toe-to-toe if you're not a warrior by virtue of knockback. It's one thing for a warrior npc to do this, but even other rogues get to do it to you, but you don't get to do it to them. Archers do a shorter duration version, but not the 5 sec "helpless idiot on tippy toes" knockbacks the npc's can do to you.
#56
Posté 11 avril 2011 - 10:25
Deified Data
-
- Members
- 269 messages
There's an obvious disconnect between the power of mages in-game and the power of mages in-lore, specifically so Bioware can allow players to play as mages and have a balanced experience. It can't be helped.
You're right, though. Your average street thug is more formidable than the toughest mage. It's unusual.
You're right, though. Your average street thug is more formidable than the toughest mage. It's unusual.
#57
Posté 11 avril 2011 - 11:30
sphinxess
-
- Members
- 503 messages
Camenae wrote...
Here's what I see from reading this and other similar threads:
People who are pro-Mage-freedom either played a Mage or identify themselves with the mages in another way, such as if they could really be in Thedas they would hope they'd be mages, or they think they're likely to be a mage (perhaps because they are a member of a minority group) or something like that.
People who are more pro-Templar, or at least, pro-"keeping mages under some form of control," think of themselves as, or otherwise identify with, the "normal" person, the Muggles, those without magic.
When I look at it that way, it suddenly turns into people doing what we've always done, advocating for our OWN rights.
Im anti-mage freedom but anti-chantry control even more. To me the chantry has had 700 years to get it right and they blew it. Time to try other ways.
#58
Posté 12 avril 2011 - 01:07
Peer of the Empire
-
- Members
- 2 044 messages
I did think about this. But mages are at high risk to be possessed by demons, and mages can turn to blood magic. Mages possess far more personal destructive force than other people, even if they are physically frail.
Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 12 avril 2011 - 01:08 .
#59
Posté 12 avril 2011 - 01:17
Rifneno
-
- Members
- 12 076 messages
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
[quote]Rifneno wrote...
And why was he untrained? That's right, because his mother didn't want to lose her child (like every parent) and because the templars kidnap and imprison all mages they find, she had to try and find an untrustworthy apostate who couldn't teach the kid how to tie his damn shoes.[/quote]It's hardly kidnapping, and you're missing the point. Mages don't go to mages for freedom from Templars in particular, mages go to demons for any number of reasons. Reasons that would have nothing to do with the Templars.
Connor didn't make a deal because he was untrained: not even a trained mage could have cured his father. Connor made a deal because a demon offered him something he couldn't do regardless. Would Connor have made the same decision had he been trained? Maybe, maybe not, but plenty of people have made deals for less than the safety of a loved one. Connor wasn't turned because he was untrained, but rather because he made a pact and offered himself.[/quote]
He wasn't taught what every good mage knows: that demons don't play fair and honest with their bargains. Even Morrigan knows better than to try and play at their word games, because for all Flemeth's possible dark intentions she knows to teach her that it's never worth risking a deal with a demon.
[quote]
Clearly mages need training. Clearly they need to be policed. Not by the Chantry though.[/quote]You'll blame whoever does it for what they do (policing), not who they are.
[/quote]
Oh good, you're telling me how I'm going to react to hypothetical situations in spite of what I say and without any supporting argument. I guess I should thank you, usually I don't get the assistance of a debating opponent making himself look like a condescending know-it-all.
[quote]Rifneno wrote...
And why was he untrained? That's right, because his mother didn't want to lose her child (like every parent) and because the templars kidnap and imprison all mages they find, she had to try and find an untrustworthy apostate who couldn't teach the kid how to tie his damn shoes.[/quote]It's hardly kidnapping, and you're missing the point. Mages don't go to mages for freedom from Templars in particular, mages go to demons for any number of reasons. Reasons that would have nothing to do with the Templars.
Connor didn't make a deal because he was untrained: not even a trained mage could have cured his father. Connor made a deal because a demon offered him something he couldn't do regardless. Would Connor have made the same decision had he been trained? Maybe, maybe not, but plenty of people have made deals for less than the safety of a loved one. Connor wasn't turned because he was untrained, but rather because he made a pact and offered himself.[/quote]
He wasn't taught what every good mage knows: that demons don't play fair and honest with their bargains. Even Morrigan knows better than to try and play at their word games, because for all Flemeth's possible dark intentions she knows to teach her that it's never worth risking a deal with a demon.
[quote]
Clearly mages need training. Clearly they need to be policed. Not by the Chantry though.[/quote]You'll blame whoever does it for what they do (policing), not who they are.
[/quote]
Oh good, you're telling me how I'm going to react to hypothetical situations in spite of what I say and without any supporting argument. I guess I should thank you, usually I don't get the assistance of a debating opponent making himself look like a condescending know-it-all.
