484 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

getterg wrote...

I think the whole deal with a blood mage trying to kill you or someone close to you every 5 seconds and packs of them roaming the streets at night is enough proof.

It doesn't even come close.  Almost all the bloodmages you see in the street are almost certainly not associated with the circle.  Of course this means the Templars are incompetant which is hardly a revelation given that they can't recognize magic when cast right in front of hem and forget about it five minutes after the fact.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

getterg wrote...

I think the whole deal with a blood mage trying to kill you or someone close to you every 5 seconds and packs of them roaming the streets at night is enough proof.

It doesn't even come close.  Almost all the bloodmages you see in the street are almost certainly not associated with the circle.  Of course this means the Templars are incompetant which is hardly a revelation given that they can't recognize magic when cast right in front of hem and forget about it five minutes after the fact.

-Polaris

Are you trying to implement gameplay into your lore based discussion? YOU? Of all people.. For shame...

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...
It doesn't even come close.  Almost all the bloodmages you see in the street are almost certainly not associated with the circle.  Of course this means the Templars are incompetant which is hardly a revelation given that they can't recognize magic when cast right in front of hem and forget about it five minutes after the fact.

-Polaris

Well, then certainly the fact that every single bloodmage can summon 14 abominations and demons and that half the mages you meet protecting the circle become abominations, or that about 20% of the mages you meet are all bloodmages must be equivalent proof that the mages are maleficarum.

[IanPolaris]

In Exile wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
It doesn't even come close.  Almost all the bloodmages you see in the street are almost certainly not associated with the circle.  Of course this means the Templars are incompetant which is hardly a revelation given that they can't recognize magic when cast right in front of hem and forget about it five minutes after the fact.

-Polaris

Well, then certainly the fact that every single bloodmage can summon 14 abominations and demons and that half the mages you meet protecting the circle become abominations, or that about 20% of the mages you meet are all bloodmages must be equivalent proof that the mages are maleficarum.

Unless you can prove that 100% of all circle mages were abominations or bloodmages, then the right of annulment is both unjustified and genocide.  I know that you can't show this.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

Well, then certainly the fact that every single bloodmage can summon 14 abominations and demons and that half the mages you meet protecting the circle become abominations, or that about 20% of the mages you meet are all bloodmages must be equivalent proof that the mages are maleficarum. 

The fact that we have no idea how many blood mages there are among the men, women, and children who are going to be killed for an act Anders did means we can speculate all we want, but it doesn't change that Anders is the one who killed the Grand Cleric, not the Circle of Magi.

[Torax]

IanPolaris wrote...

In Exile wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
It doesn't even come close.  Almost all the bloodmages you see in the street are almost certainly not associated with the circle.  Of course this means the Templars are incompetant which is hardly a revelation given that they can't recognize magic when cast right in front of hem and forget about it five minutes after the fact.

-Polaris

Well, then certainly the fact that every single bloodmage can summon 14 abominations and demons and that half the mages you meet protecting the circle become abominations, or that about 20% of the mages you meet are all bloodmages must be equivalent proof that the mages are maleficarum.

Unless you can prove that 100% of all circle mages were abominations or bloodmages, then the right of annulment is both unjustified and genocide.  I know that you can't show this.

-Polaris

Neither can you say that none of the circle mages were maleficarum. Even the First Enchanter reveals he was one. But we should be well past the fact that Meredith only enacted the Right for her own reasons and not because of what Anders did. Anders just granted her the ability to do what she wanted for some time. Her logic was all the Blood Magic she had seen over time. Obviously some of it was from inside the Circle. If a player doesn't have Sebastian's DLC they woudln't even know about the Resolutionists as one of the outside parties helping to fuel the anger. So it would suggest that it's not just Apostates but mages within the circle working with blood magic.

Orsino & Meredith have you go looking for Circle mages that end up being blood mages. So it's not a far leap to know many of them are. Meredith with her "Magic is a curse" logic would think it's better to kill them all than risk one getting lose and starting all over again. We may not agree but that is the subject not about how all the mages are not guilty. Meredith doesn't care obviously and she most definitely cannot read this thread.

[Rockpopple]

Is the RoA only intended to be used if ALL the Mages, including the children, in the Circle were corrupted?

I don't even think that's how it worked in Ferelden. Some quotes would be nice.

Edit: I know Bethany wasn't Maleficarum, cuz she's an Amell and Amell don't play that.

Modifié par Rockpopple, 13 avril 2011 - 08:07 .

[IanPolaris]

Rockpopple wrote...

Is the RoA only intended to be used if ALL the Mages, including the children, in the Circle were corrupted?

I don't even think that's how it worked in Ferelden. Some quotes would be nice.

Edit: I know Bethany wasn't Maleficarum, cuz she's an Amell and Amell don't play that.

Yes.  Cullen says this very explicitly when you talk with him before the final battle if you side with the Templars.  Also IIRC the Codex entries make that brutally clear and IIRC DG even confimed it quite recently.

RoA means death (or at best tranquility if captured)  to all circle mages down to the last child.

-Polaris

[Saephy]

Strange, as a player I find it harder to side with the templars in this game.
I felt this game is somewhat "skewed" in the presentation of the mage/templar-conflict, and is favouring the mages.
It´s a lot less ambiguous than DA:O, in DA:O I remember finding "picking sides" much harder than this one, as I thought both sides had valid points, and made reasonable arguments - and I originally played mage in both games.

In DAII the presentation can be summed up with "The templars are evuhl and oppress the mages and every atrocity the mages commit can ultimately be blamed on the templars".
I might be too gullible though, as I tended to dismiss the numerous loon-mages you meet as isolated incidents, exceptions rather than any sort of representative for mages.

That was the knee-jerk reaction during the first playthrough anyway, but after completing the game, and during subsequent playthroughs more nuances became apparent, obviously.
Yet my impression is the game seems to make a tremendous effort to have you sympathize and pity the mages right from the get-go, whether rightly so or not I won`t comment on as you seem to be already on top of that discussion.

Interesting to see that there´s a lot of other people with such a different perception of it 

[Rockpopple]

IanPolaris wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Is the RoA only intended to be used if ALL the Mages, including the children, in the Circle were corrupted?

I don't even think that's how it worked in Ferelden. Some quotes would be nice.

Edit: I know Bethany wasn't Maleficarum, cuz she's an Amell and Amell don't play that.

Yes.  Cullen says this very explicitly when you talk with him before the final battle if you side with the Templars.  Also IIRC the Codex entries make that brutally clear and IIRC DG even confimed it quite recently.

RoA means death (or at best tranquility if captured)  to all circle mages down to the last child.

-Polaris

Hm, I'm not sure if you got my question. I wasn't asking if it killed all Mages, even the children. I know it does. I'm asking if it's only intended to be used if every Mage in the Circle is Maleficarum or a Blood Mage, including the children.

[Torax]

Rockpopple wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Is the RoA only intended to be used if ALL the Mages, including the children, in the Circle were corrupted?

I don't even think that's how it worked in Ferelden. Some quotes would be nice.

Edit: I know Bethany wasn't Maleficarum, cuz she's an Amell and Amell don't play that.

Yes.  Cullen says this very explicitly when you talk with him before the final battle if you side with the Templars.  Also IIRC the Codex entries make that brutally clear and IIRC DG even confimed it quite recently.

RoA means death (or at best tranquility if captured)  to all circle mages down to the last child.

-Polaris

Hm, I'm not sure if you got my question. I wasn't asking if it killed all Mages, even the children. I know it does. I'm asking if it's only intended to be used if every Mage in the Circle is Maleficarum or a Blood Mage, including the children.

Answer is No. But basically the Knight Comannder would need enough proof to prove to the Chantry that it is beyond help. That it risks falling to magic basically. Templars having lost control.

[Destrier77]

I have to say i found it easy to side with the mages. In my world a mage had stopped the blight, and the circle in ferelden had been freed. Mages are not inherrently evil in the game, they are just very very naive.

SPOILERS**
Take merril, she is being used by a demon to create a gateway and doesnt realise it. Anders is used by a demon to create a war. The head of the mages tower is dabbling in blood magic and it turns him into a beast.

There are plenty of mages who are not tempted, in your final battle you can see lots helping you throughout the city, others in the tower escape (unseen). This was the reason i didnt want to kill all the mages. In my opinion the towers do not work, the mages hate the fact they are locked up and it turns them to evil. Eventually meaning they will be killed when they inevitably turn.

So are they better to be free?

If free to roam they seem to be a lot better people, i mean there is evil in every person, there are bandits, and theives, so should all warriors and rogues be locked up? That said the potential for evil is greater because they are more powerful.

I think the interesting thing is if this was a real life problem, and we had mages in our world, i think we would ahve to come to a similar solution, because to let them roam free with such power would cause so much damage. When they do turn to murder and theft they are 100 times worse.

Take the mages of the imperium and the evil they have become (in my opinion) with their slavery.

Hmmm after this bit of writing i think im changing my mind, did i do the right thing to free them lol. I started out writing this pro mages, and slowly changed my mind.

Anyway cant wait for then next game and seeing the results of what has happened!!

[The Baconer]

IanPolaris wrote...
It doesn't even come close.  Almost all the bloodmages you see in the street are almost certainly not associated with the circle.
-Polaris

So you're saying that they're apostates. Apostates who thought it would be a great idea to come and hide in Kirkwall. Kirkwall, whose Circle is infamous throughout Thedas for its particularly abusive treatment of mages and the fervor of its templars.

Right.

[LobselVith8]

Destrier77 wrote...

Take merril, she is being used by a demon to create a gateway and doesnt realise it.

The problem is this is what Marethari thought would happen, and we don't know whether this is remotely true or not since it could have been the plan all along for Audacity to be free from the totem.

Destrier77 wrote...

Anders is used by a demon to create a war. The head of the mages tower is dabbling in blood magic and it turns him into a beast.

I think the problem is that Anders is inhabited by a Spirit of Justice with a narrow and linear perspective. I think Merrill is correct in stating that all spirits are dangerous.

[LobselVith8]

The Baconer wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
It doesn't even come close.  Almost all the bloodmages you see in the street are almost certainly not associated with the circle.
-Polaris

So you're saying that they're apostates. Apostates who thought it would be a great idea to come and hide in Kirkwall. Kirkwall, whose Circle is infamous throughout Thedas for its particularly abusive treatment of mages and the fervor of its templars.

Right.

Yes, because it's not like apostates would ever come to Kirkwall from Ferelden or anything like that...

[EmperorSahlertz]

Rockpopple wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Is the RoA only intended to be used if ALL the Mages, including the children, in the Circle were corrupted?

I don't even think that's how it worked in Ferelden. Some quotes would be nice.

Edit: I know Bethany wasn't Maleficarum, cuz she's an Amell and Amell don't play that.

Yes.  Cullen says this very explicitly when you talk with him before the final battle if you side with the Templars.  Also IIRC the Codex entries make that brutally clear and IIRC DG even confimed it quite recently.

RoA means death (or at best tranquility if captured)  to all circle mages down to the last child.

-Polaris

Hm, I'm not sure if you got my question. I wasn't asking if it killed all Mages, even the children. I know it does. I'm asking if it's only intended to be used if every Mage in the Circle is Maleficarum or a Blood Mage, including the children.

It is supposed to be used when the Circle is deemed irredeemable. When it is deemed such, depends on the Knight-Commander and Grand Cleric in question.

[stobie]

Saephy wrote...

Strange, as a player I find it harder to side with the templars in this game.
I felt this game is somewhat "skewed" in the presentation of the mage/templar-conflict, and is favouring the mages.
It´s a lot less ambiguous than DA:O, in DA:O I remember finding "picking sides" much harder than this one, as I thought both sides had valid points, and made reasonable arguments - and I originally played mage in both games.

In DAII the presentation can be summed up with "The templars are evuhl and oppress the mages and every atrocity the mages commit can ultimately be blamed on the templars".
I might be too gullible though, as I tended to dismiss the numerous loon-mages you meet as isolated incidents, exceptions rather than any sort of representative for mages.

That was the knee-jerk reaction during the first playthrough anyway, but after completing the game, and during subsequent playthroughs more nuances became apparent, obviously.
Yet my impression is the game seems to make a tremendous effort to have you sympathize and pity the mages right from the get-go, whether rightly so or not I won`t comment on as you seem to be already on top of that discussion.

Interesting to see that there´s a lot of other people with such a different perception of it 

That was my initial reaction, too, definitely. 

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...
Unless you can prove that 100% of all circle mages were abominations or bloodmages, then the right of annulment is both unjustified and genocide.  I know that you can't show this.

-Polaris

I was mocking your appeal to gameplay. It's likely Hawke barely ever fights, aside from the mess with the qunari.

LobselVith8 wrote...
The fact that we have no idea how many
blood mages there are among the men, women, and children who are going
to be killed for an act Anders did means we can speculate all we want,
but it doesn't change that Anders is the one who killed the Grand
Cleric, not the Circle of Magi.

I was mocking his appeal to gameplay. Meredith wasn't justified an the Rite is horrific... but bad arguments are still bad.

[The Baconer]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Yes, because it's not like apostates would ever come to Kirkwall from Ferelden or anything like that...

Enough to be able to say "Obviously, every single rogue mage in the city is a Ferelden Apostate."? Hell no. And if we're going off of evidence of that being explicitly stated in the game, aside from Hawke, there's Evelina. Who presented herself to the Kirkwall circle, before escaping and becoming an abomination.

Besides, even if every single mage we meet outside the Gallows ever was an Apostate unrelated to Kirkwall's circle, it still adds to Meredith's claim that the entire city is infested.

[nightscrawl]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Oh I have no doubt that some of them are innocent. But they should have thought about that, before they let their First Enchanter refuse the Knight-Commander's investigation into the tower, searching for Blood Magic. There is no chance that the law abidding Mages within the tower did not know about the Maleficarum arts being practised in the tower.  They should have, turned those breaking the law in, or assisted in an investigation, a long time ago. They didn't. Too bad. They could have stopped it, before it begun.

Are you deliberately ignoring that there are mage children there? They have no say in anything.

IanPolaris wrote...

It is also the same game where Mage-Hawke can use bloodmagic right in front of Cullen and not only does Cullen not notice that, but he never notices that Hawke is a mage at all. He says that he hears 'dire rumors' about Hawke and hopes they aren't true. Dire rumors....I used Blood magic to save your sorry posterior you blind useless excuse for a Templar! The other templars are no better.

-Polaris

I think this is more of a game defect/shortcoming than anything else. Sure, some NPCs recognize that you are a mage vs non-mage, but not really any specifics. You can use blood magic in front of Culen and he says nothing. As a warrior, you can spec into templar and use those skills in front of Anders and he also says nothing. It would certainly make for more immersive gameplay if the NPCs were able to recognize your talent specs after you have been in combat in their presence. =/

Saephy wrote...

Strange, as a player I find it harder to side with the templars in this game.
I felt this game is somewhat "skewed" in the presentation of the mage/templar-conflict, and is favouring the mages.

You will find posts on this forum expressing just the opposite. While Anders may rant at you constantly about how mages are treated, there isn't a dearth of material against them. Not only do you see numerous corrupt mages throughout your 7 years in Kirkwall, your own mother is killed by a mage! There are examples of mages who act the way they do, not because the templars pushed them that far, but because they lust for power or use their magic as a means to an end (Uldred, Tarohne, Gasgard DePuis, Quentin, Merrill, and even Anders.) Depending on your own viewpoint, it seems to me that the argument is pretty evenly split. Hawke has people and evidence thrown at him/her constantly from both sides, certainly enough to form his own opinion when it's time to make his final choice.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 14 avril 2011 - 06:19 .

[DaeJi]

Thedas is very much anti-mage and magic, given what happened with the Imperium. As a result mages are seen as walking hell bombs and are taught that they are corrupted from birth. They lose connection to the world outside the tower should they go to a Circle of Magi and are hounded should they run. Anders said that the number one cause of death in a circle is suicide; I would not be surprised if that was the number one cause of death for all mages. Nothing about their lives is easy, and they are guilty of a crime of birth.

Thedas really, really had this mage rebellion coming, and the Chantry (and the Qunari should they get involved) deserve it (innocent people do not).

The need to educate and train mages should not extend to the need to control and imprison them. The Circle and the Templars are needed. Cutting mages off from family, marriage, property, and knowledge is not. Simple things like letting parents visit, freedom to visit towns, treating the Circle as more of a gated community than prison, may have gone towards stopping this rebellion. Freedom is a powerful desire, and while freedom is tempted by safety the mages could easily have been afforded more.

As it stands, the mages actually need to win. Anything else and Thedas could easily fall, either to a newly boasted Imperium (where else would the mages go) or a new Qunari invasion (without mages, cannons become a lot harder to counter). Until new information is presented supporting the mages is the best course of action to possibly create a better future; nothing though is certain.

[Rifneno]

The Baconer wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
It doesn't even come close.  Almost all the bloodmages you see in the street are almost certainly not associated with the circle.
-Polaris

So you're saying that they're apostates. Apostates who thought it would be a great idea to come and hide in Kirkwall. Kirkwall, whose Circle is infamous throughout Thedas for its particularly abusive treatment of mages and the fervor of its templars.

Right.

You just described the main character.  Bravo.

But actually, I agree most of them were likely in the Circle and escaped at some point.  I don't see how that helps the templars case though.  It likely means that the templars took them from somewhere safe in the Free Marches and locked them in the house from Poltergeist until they went mad.  Kirkwall's veil is about 2 slave sacrifices from dropping a giant marshmallow man in the city, as we all know.  Look at Evelina.  She was not just sane, she was a great person willing to risk her own neck for the less fortunate.  Few years in the Kirkwall Gallows and she's a sputtering abomination.  But I'm sure the pro-templar crowd will find some way to weasel out of the simple fact that the Chantry locked her and so many others in a vortex of insanity and that is why there's a blood mage on every corner.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It is supposed to be used when the Circle is deemed irredeemable. When it is deemed such, depends on the Knight-Commander and Grand Cleric in question.

What's the weather like in hell?  I'm agreeing with something Sahl says.  Surreal.    But yeah, all we have to go on is the codex entry saying it's for when the grand cleric feels the Circle is "irredeemably" corrupt and DG stating here on the forums that in the abscence of a grand cleric, the knight commander can make that call.

[Blastaz]

I sided with the Templars. Then again my Hawke would have blamed the destruction of the Chantry on Orsino, claimned at Anders public execution that he was just Orsino's mind controlled puppet, and praised Meredith who died valliantly combating Orsino's evil. Having confirmed Cullen as the new Knight Commander and got him in his pocket he could then have taken over the throne of Kirwall, as a happy, and beloved Viscount.

That would have led to no mage rebeliion and is what Plato called the Noble Lie...

My DA:O playthrough was much the same, my human noble ended up on the throne with three of the richest estates in Ferelden under his belt, in a great position to put his nephew/brother forward as the next king rather than the jumped up peasant daughter of a traitor that the cannon seems to prefer.

[EmperorSahlertz]

nightscrawl wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Oh I have no doubt that some of them are innocent. But they should have thought about that, before they let their First Enchanter refuse the Knight-Commander's investigation into the tower, searching for Blood Magic. There is no chance that the law abidding Mages within the tower did not know about the Maleficarum arts being practised in the tower.  They should have, turned those breaking the law in, or assisted in an investigation, a long time ago. They didn't. Too bad. They could have stopped it, before it begun.

Are you deliberately ignoring that there are mage children there? They have no say in anything.

It is regretable that the actions of the adults, have such consequences for the children indeed. Not much you can do about it though. All you can hope for is that the children are indeed innocent and that the Knight-Commander recognizes this. Of course you could also be unlucky enough to find even the children corrupt and/or possessed...

[LobselVith8]

The Baconer wrote...

Enough to be able to say "Obviously, every single rogue mage in the city is a Ferelden Apostate."? Hell no. And if we're going off of evidence of that being explicitly stated in the game, aside from Hawke, there's Evelina. Who presented herself to the Kirkwall circle, before escaping and becoming an abomination.

Enough to address that there are plenty of apostates we encounter in the storyline to see that Hawke or Bethany aren't the only illegal mages in Kirkwall. And Evelina and Huon are two examples of perfectly sane mages who were driven to insanity after being imprisoned in the Gallows.

The Baconer wrote...

Besides, even if every single mage we meet outside the Gallows ever was an Apostate unrelated to Kirkwall's circle, it still adds to Meredith's claim that the entire city is infested.

So Meredith going to order the execution of every mage in the Circle of Magi because of the actions of one apostate - men, women, and children are going to die because Anders blew up the Kirkwall Chantry.