359 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Asdara wrote...

I fail at parsing quotes.  I will answer in order instead.  /shame.

Don't worry about it! No /shame necessary.

Asdara wrote...

The man in charge of the mages being associated with a blood mage outside the Circle who kills people as his hobby horse and happens to be manically insane is significant.  It doesn't damn them all, but it throws into question ANY monitoring value he MIGHT have had.  To paraphrase Anders: How could he be the voice of justice for mages if he was the worst thing they could become?  Orsino pulled that Harvester ritual out very quickly.

Except Orsino doesn't monitor the mages - the templars do.

Asdara wrote... 

Grace is from Starkhaven, and since even if you let her go she is captured and brought to the Kirkwall Circle to live for 3 years; you see her in Act 2, then 3 years pass, enter Act 3.  I reiterate: years spent in the Circle working closely with templars, a sadistic bloodmage with a vengeance complex.

My point was that Grace isn't from Kirkwall, and I don't see how her desire for vengence reflect on the other mages in the Circle of Kirkwall. Hawke pretty much kills the mages who were working for her and the conspiracy falls flat on its face because of the Champion.

Asdara wrote...

From what I understand from other threads, yes people seem to believe it may be a bug.

What's supposed to happen if Hawke is pro-mage? I'm curious.

Asdara wrote...

We could fit what we know about other cultures in Thedas into a thimble - and many of our "sources" are discarded papers, book pages rather than whole books, and snatches of conversation.  All of what you said is accurate, according to all of that, but it hardly gives us a complete picture.  

It gives us enough insight to see that the hatred of mages in Andrastian societies is tied to their religious beliefs when we see non-Andrastian cultures accept mages in their society. It makes sense since the Chantry preaches that mages as "cursed" and responsible for the Blights.

Asdara wrote...

Additionally: part of the cult of Andraste is the legend of her battle against the mages.  Of course they are pre-disposted to distrust of mages after how many hundred years?  

True, it's part of the reason for the Andrastians, but the Dalish also fought against the Imperium under Shartan, and they aren't pre-disposed to distrust mages.

[TJPags]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]TJPags wrote...

What I find funny about the whole "mage or templar" argument is the constant use of the phrase "you can't condemn everyone because of one person"  I see it a lot from pro mage people, as in the above (sorry, Lob, it was in your post - not really trying to single you out here). [/quote]

That's because people say they wipe out the Circle of Kirkwall because of what Anders did, or because of what Orsino did. People address that the actions of that particular individual shouldn't condemn every mage living in the Gallows.[/quote]

But then there are people like me, who believe the Kirkwall Circle should be wiped out because of the incredibly high number of blood mages roaming the streets.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

We have Grace, blood mage and murderer of Trask, who tried to kill you - after you saved her.  But we can't condemn all mages for that. [/quote]

Grace, from the Circle of Starkhaven, who was working with Ser Thrask and other templars and mages when Hawke's sibling or lover is kidnapped. Isn't that like asking if we should condemn all the templars who helped kidnap Bethany or Merrill because Ser Thrask thought Hawke was working for Knight-Commander Meredith?[/quote]

Grace, who was plotting revenge against you, and who dominated that entire group of people with her after killing Trask, likely for the power to do so.  Who was a blood mage who managed to somehow gain the sympathy of Templars.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

We have what's her name, the one in the Pearl - errr, the Blooming Rose - mind-raping templars.  But we can't condemn all mages because of her. [/quote]

Idunna is an apostate and we have nothing to indicate she's from the Circle of Kirkwall. She's not brought up because people are addressing why the Circle of Kirkwall shouldn't be condemned at the conclusion of the storyline in Dragon Age 2 when discussing the Right of Annulment.[/quote]

She should be brought up, because she is absolutely a blood mage operating in Kirkwall, more evidence of the prevelance of blood mages.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

We have Decimus - blood mage.  Can't condemn all mages because of him. [/quote]

Decimus is from the Circle of Starkhaven. I have no idea whether the Starkhaven Circle was as bad as the Circle of Kirkwall. Hawke only has a limited amount of information.[/quote]

I'll grant you him.


[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

We have what's her name, that was helping demons possess templars.  But we can't condemn all mages for that. [/quote]

Tarohne's background is unknown to us. All we know is that she is an apostate. What pushed her is unknown to us from the perspective of Hawke.[/quote]

Yet another blood mage operating in Kirkwall - on templars no less.  And what was her plan for these Templars?

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

We have the elf who kills his wife, and attacks you.  But we can't condemn everyone for him. [/quote]

You mean Huon, who was sane when he was in the Alienage, and insane because of his time in the Gallows?[/quote]

Insane?  Who says he's insane?  I propose that perhaps he learned the power of blood magic while in the Circle.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

We have the third blood mage (the elf, Emile, and this one) from that quest.  Can't condemn every mage for that. [/quote]

Emile isn't even a blood mage, and Evelina was sane when she was part of the Circle of Ferelden and insane after her time in the Gallows.[/quote]

I wasn't referring to Emile, just referencing him as I forgot the other names.  But again, we have yet another blood mage from the Kirkwall Circle.  And again, one who perhaps learned their blood magic there, and was somehow not caught.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

We have every insane blood mage who attacks you in the street.  Can't condemn all mages for that. [/quote]

You mean the mages who are apostates because they aren't in the Circle of Magi? We have no idea why they are antagonists.[/quote]

Apostates?  All of them?  I'm not so sure about that at all.  Even if true, they are banding togetther for what, to play bridge?  Or are they part of Anders mage underground?


[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

In contrast, on the Templar side, we have Alrik.  We have maybe Kerras.  Can we condemn all templars because of them? [/quote]

We have Knight-Commander Meredith, who orders an act of genocide against an entire population because of the actions of an apostate. We have the templars who follow orders and kill men, women, and children who are not responsible for what Anders did. Despite that, I wouldn't condemn all templars for the actions of those like Ser Alrik or Ser Kerras. I thought Ser Thrask was a good person, and there were plenty of good templars who we met as the Warden in Origins.[/quote]

Now now, we're discussing whether the Right should be called - not its effect.  After all, if warranted, then it's the right thing to do.  So discussion of Meredith calling for the Right because of Anders, and whether Templars obey her or not, is not part of this discussion.

To the second point, I respectfully disagree.   You often and loudly denounce Alrik and Kerras, and hold them up as examples of Templar abuse.  And then argue that Templars are the root cause of all the evil we've been discussing above.  So you do, in effect, condemn all blood mages because of the actions of Alrik and Kerras.  (keep in mind I question whether Kerras is guilty of anything, but I'll accept that he is for the sake of this argument)

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

Look at the weight of the evidence here.  Can we really blame every single one of those blood mages on the Templars?  Even the ones who were blood mages BEFORE they got to Kirkwall?[/quote]

Considering we know next to nothing about them? I'm not certain an argument can be made either way for the mages we know little about.[/quote]

Well, we know they are blood mages.  We know they are dangerous.  We know that they are killers.  We know some of them have been able to continue their operations while in the Kirkwall Circle.  We know one has helped a known killer.  We know some are able to get out of the Gallows at will.  Do we need to know their favorite colors or something?

[AshenEndymion]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]TJPags wrote...

We have Grace, blood mage and murderer of Trask, who tried to kill you - after you saved her.  But we can't condemn all mages for that. [/quote]

Grace, from the Circle of Starkhaven, who was working with Ser Thrask and other templars and mages when Hawke's sibling or lover is kidnapped. Isn't that like asking if we should condemn all the templars who helped kidnap Bethany or Merrill because Ser Thrask thought Hawke was working for Knight-Commander Meredith?[/quote]

Yes.  Yes you should condemn them.  Because every templar there helped Thrask kidnap Behany/Carver (or whichever companion), and assisted Maleficarum.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]TJPags wrote...

We have the elf who kills his wife, and attacks you.  But we can't condemn everyone for him. [/quote]

You mean Huon, who was sane when he was in the Alienage, and insane because of his time in the Gallows?

[quote]TJPags wrote...

We have the third blood mage (the elf, Emile, and this one) from that quest.  Can't condemn every mage for that. [/quote]

Emile isn't even a blood mage, and Evelina was sane when she was part of the Circle of Ferelden and insane after her time in the Gallows.[/quote]

They were present in the Gallows at the same as Grace.  Clearly Grace taught them blood magic and made them insane.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

We have every insane blood mage who attacks you in the street.  Can't condemn all mages for that. [/quote]

You mean the mages who are apostates because they aren't in the Circle of Magi? We have no idea why they are antagonists.[/quote]

Maleficar =/= apostate.  The Templars had not taken to the streets to exterminate the lot of the apostates roaming them at night.  Until proven otherwise, those mages were Circle mages.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

In contrast, on the Templar side, we have Alrik.  We have maybe Kerras.  Can we condemn all templars because of them? [/quote]

We have Knight-Commander Meredith, who orders an act of genocide against an entire population because of the actions of an apostate. We have the templars who follow orders and kill men, women, and children who are not responsible for what Anders did. Despite that, I wouldn't condemn all templars for the actions of those like Ser Alrik or Ser Kerras. I thought Ser Thrask was a good person, and there were plenty of good templars who we met as the Warden in Origins.[/quote]

Templars who follow orders to save the lives of the men, women, and children of Kirkwall from the Maleficarum and abominations the mages of Kirkwall were.  But no one cares about the true citizens of Kirkwall.  Better to save the few and condemn the many to a life of slavery and death.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]Asdara wrote...

The man in charge of the mages being
associated with a blood mage outside the Circle who kills people as his
hobby horse and happens to be manically insane is significant.  It
doesn't damn them all, but it throws into question ANY monitoring value
he MIGHT have had.  To paraphrase Anders: How could he be the voice of
justice for mages if he was the worst thing they could become?  Orsino
pulled that Harvester ritual out very quickly. [/quote]

Except Orsino doesn't monitor the mages - the templars do.[/quote]

The actions of First Enchanter Irving in the Circle Origin would disagree with that assessment.  Orsino should be monitoring the mages if he wanted to keep the Circle alive.

Modifié par AshenEndemion, 14 avril 2011 - 02:31 .

[Asdara]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Asdara wrote...

I fail at parsing quotes.  I will answer in order instead.  /shame.

Don't worry about it! No /shame necessary.

Asdara wrote...

The man in charge of the mages being associated with a blood mage outside the Circle who kills people as his hobby horse and happens to be manically insane is significant.  It doesn't damn them all, but it throws into question ANY monitoring value he MIGHT have had.  To paraphrase Anders: How could he be the voice of justice for mages if he was the worst thing they could become?  Orsino pulled that Harvester ritual out very quickly.

Except Orsino doesn't monitor the mages - the templars do.

Asdara wrote... 

Grace is from Starkhaven, and since even if you let her go she is captured and brought to the Kirkwall Circle to live for 3 years; you see her in Act 2, then 3 years pass, enter Act 3.  I reiterate: years spent in the Circle working closely with templars, a sadistic bloodmage with a vengeance complex.

My point was that Grace isn't from Kirkwall, and I don't see how her desire for vengence reflect on the other mages in the Circle of Kirkwall. Hawke pretty much kills the mages who were working for her and the conspiracy falls flat on its face because of the Champion.

Asdara wrote...

From what I understand from other threads, yes people seem to believe it may be a bug.

What's supposed to happen if Hawke is pro-mage? I'm curious.

Asdara wrote...

We could fit what we know about other cultures in Thedas into a thimble - and many of our "sources" are discarded papers, book pages rather than whole books, and snatches of conversation.  All of what you said is accurate, according to all of that, but it hardly gives us a complete picture.  

It gives us enough insight to see that the hatred of mages in Andrastian societies is tied to their religious beliefs when we see non-Andrastian cultures accept mages in their society. It makes sense since the Chantry preaches that mages as "cursed" and responsible for the Blights.

Asdara wrote...

Additionally: part of the cult of Andraste is the legend of her battle against the mages.  Of course they are pre-disposted to distrust of mages after how many hundred years?  

True, it's part of the reason for the Andrastians, but the Dalish also fought against the Imperium under Shartan, and they aren't pre-disposed to distrust mages.

Continued fail, but thanks for the encouragement

Irving worked with Gregoir; Orsino and Meredith have clearly had talks - even if they are increasingly confrontational over the long years we don't actually see them "at their best" (if there ever was such a thing); it's logical to assume that Orsino has some supervision capacity at the tower, or had.

My point is mostly that she's a bloodmage.  Unnoticed.  Without plot armor alla Hawke.  In a place where, apparently, even the innocent are tormented, as you might agree.  Seems unlikely if she was the only one now doesn't it?  She didn't strike me as all that resourceful. 

I recall people saying that it would be "all a mistake" from Thrask and crazy Grace would still foam at the mouth, but less abrasive before that perhaps.  I would have to find the thread, and I am really in no condition to search (long day, unrelated).

Mages are historically responsible for blights, according to the Chantry.  True?  I'm guessing not, but we might never know.  Regardless, present day mages are not directly blamed for Blights even though one just occurred in any instance I am aware of.  Subtly different kind of prejudice verses righteous hatred.  

The dialog related to why the Dalish do not follow the Chantry is because they do not believe in the Maker or that she was holy.  She was a leader against the people who oppressed them who deserves respect, but not worship.  They had noble family mages - or what would be akin to nobility for elves, let's say rather - just like Fenris explained that the Imperium did.  What happened there?  Chantry couldn't uproot the previous system that gave mages privilege.  Merrill mentions that elves who show talent are rare enough to be given to other clans that have fewer to allow them to maintain a line of Keepers.  No mage numbers to support an Imperium scenario, but sufficient importance culturally to be vital and few enough numbers so as to be much more easily managed that the number probably living just in the Kirkwall circle.  Much less problematic I might postulate.  Merrill and her Keeper confess as much when they say some mages must be killed when if they become abominations, and the clan is capable of that.

[LobselVith8]

Asdara wrote...

Continued fail, but thanks for the encouragement

No worries, it always takes a while to adjust to it.

Asdara wrote...

Irving worked with Gregoir; Orsino and Meredith have clearly had talks - even if they are increasingly confrontational over the long years we don't actually see them "at their best" (if there ever was such a thing); it's logical to assume that Orsino has some supervision capacity at the tower, or had.

But Meredith doesn't work with Orsino; they are at each other's throats every time we see them together. There's no reason to assume that the Knight-Commander who installs herself as the dictator over Kirkwall and thinks the First Enchanter is plotting against her (pro-templar in "Best Served Cold) would give a measure of supervisory authority to a mage.

Asdara wrote...

My point is mostly that she's a bloodmage.  Unnoticed.  Without plot armor alla Hawke.  In a place where, apparently, even the innocent are tormented, as you might agree.  Seems unlikely if she was the only one now doesn't it?  She didn't strike me as all that resourceful. 

I don't think Grace is the only blood mage, but given the example of Merrill, I don't think all blood mages are evil. It's pretty much a "chicken and the egg" argument with the templars and blood mages in Kirkwall.

Asdara wrote...

I recall people saying that it would be "all a mistake" from Thrask and crazy Grace would still foam at the mouth, but less abrasive before that perhaps.  I would have to find the thread, and I am really in no condition to search (long day, unrelated).

I remember him saying something like that when Hawke tells Thrask that he isn't working for Meredith. I wonder if the upcoming patch will fix the quest, then.

Asdara wrote...

Mages are historically responsible for blights, according to the Chantry.  True?  I'm guessing not, but we might never know.  Regardless, present day mages are not directly blamed for Blights even though one just occurred in any instance I am aware of.  Subtly different kind of prejudice verses righteous hatred.  

Mages are credited as being responsible as opposed to the Tevinter mages, via the Magi Origin where Greagoir explicitly addresses "mages" as bringing the world to the brink of ruin, and we hear repeated use of the term "cursed" to address mages among Andrastians, even by Meredith.

Asdara wrote...

The dialog related to why the Dalish do not follow the Chantry is because they do not believe in the Maker or that she was holy.  She was a leader against the people who oppressed them who deserves respect, but not worship.  They had noble family mages - or what would be akin to nobility for elves, let's say rather - just like Fenris explained that the Imperium did.  What happened there?  Chantry couldn't uproot the previous system that gave mages privilege.  

I meant that the Dalish don't fear mages like the Andrastians do, despite their common history in being slaves of the Imperium.

Asdara wrote...

Merrill mentions that elves who show talent are rare enough to be given to other clans that have fewer to allow them to maintain a line of Keepers.  No mage numbers to support an Imperium scenario, but sufficient importance culturally to be vital and few enough numbers so as to be much more easily managed that the number probably living just in the Kirkwall circle.  Much less problematic I might postulate.  Merrill and her Keeper confess as much when they say some mages must be killed when if they become abominations, and the clan is capable of that.

There wasn't an Imperium scenerio with the Dales, though. Regarding the mages becoming Keepers, it's tied to elven history, because the Dalish believe the Arlathan elves were all mages, and that they started to lose this (along with their immortality) because of their interaction with humanity.

[Asdara]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Asdara wrote...

Continued fail, but thanks for the encouragement

No worries, it always takes a while to adjust to it.

Asdara wrote...

Irving worked with Gregoir; Orsino and Meredith have clearly had talks - even if they are increasingly confrontational over the long years we don't actually see them "at their best" (if there ever was such a thing); it's logical to assume that Orsino has some supervision capacity at the tower, or had.

But Meredith doesn't work with Orsino; they are at each other's throats every time we see them together. There's no reason to assume that the Knight-Commander who installs herself as the dictator over Kirkwall and thinks the First Enchanter is plotting against her (pro-templar in "Best Served Cold) would give a measure of supervisory authority to a mage.

Asdara wrote...

My point is mostly that she's a bloodmage.  Unnoticed.  Without plot armor alla Hawke.  In a place where, apparently, even the innocent are tormented, as you might agree.  Seems unlikely if she was the only one now doesn't it?  She didn't strike me as all that resourceful. 

I don't think Grace is the only blood mage, but given the example of Merrill, I don't think all blood mages are evil. It's pretty much a "chicken and the egg" argument with the templars and blood mages in Kirkwall.

Asdara wrote...

I recall people saying that it would be "all a mistake" from Thrask and crazy Grace would still foam at the mouth, but less abrasive before that perhaps.  I would have to find the thread, and I am really in no condition to search (long day, unrelated).

I remember him saying something like that when Hawke tells Thrask that he isn't working for Meredith. I wonder if the upcoming patch will fix the quest, then.

Asdara wrote...

Mages are historically responsible for blights, according to the Chantry.  True?  I'm guessing not, but we might never know.  Regardless, present day mages are not directly blamed for Blights even though one just occurred in any instance I am aware of.  Subtly different kind of prejudice verses righteous hatred.  

Mages are credited as being responsible as opposed to the Tevinter mages, via the Magi Origin where Greagoir explicitly addresses "mages" as bringing the world to the brink of ruin, and we hear repeated use of the term "cursed" to address mages among Andrastians, even by Meredith.

Asdara wrote...

The dialog related to why the Dalish do not follow the Chantry is because they do not believe in the Maker or that she was holy.  She was a leader against the people who oppressed them who deserves respect, but not worship.  They had noble family mages - or what would be akin to nobility for elves, let's say rather - just like Fenris explained that the Imperium did.  What happened there?  Chantry couldn't uproot the previous system that gave mages privilege.  

I meant that the Dalish don't fear mages like the Andrastians do, despite their common history in being slaves of the Imperium.

Asdara wrote...

Merrill mentions that elves who show talent are rare enough to be given to other clans that have fewer to allow them to maintain a line of Keepers.  No mage numbers to support an Imperium scenario, but sufficient importance culturally to be vital and few enough numbers so as to be much more easily managed that the number probably living just in the Kirkwall circle.  Much less problematic I might postulate.  Merrill and her Keeper confess as much when they say some mages must be killed when if they become abominations, and the clan is capable of that.

There wasn't an Imperium scenerio with the Dales, though. Regarding the mages becoming Keepers, it's tied to elven history, because the Dalish believe the Arlathan elves were all mages, and that they started to lose this (along with their immortality) because of their interaction with humanity.

The last point has a good deal to do with what I suspect the collection of random, cryptic remarks allude to.  Perhaps some pre-history magical utopia scenario.  Might be awesome.  Likely we'll never see it.  Oh well.

We're really getting to a fine cut on the facts now, between the two of us, and as I said, I can totally grasp the mage's side of the issue - my natural proclivity is to favor the oppressed rather than society as a collective, both personally and as a direct result of my own culture's value on freedom (even if we... well let's just say I'd rather that be seen as a "loose" association).  My only objective here is to point out that the facts can be construed differently to construct a different, equally "factual" scenario, based on perspective - depending on where one is looking at it from - as a mage, as a common person, as a templar, as a templar specifically under Meredith in a circle going wrong, or a mage in the same hell, and so on. 

It's a demonstration of the strength of the scenario - maybe because of or maybe in spite of the writing, that's another argument - that it sustains its ambiguity under such scrutiny.

  It's been a pleasure.  

Tomorrow's another day though, sleepy-time calls.  

[darrylzero]

IanPolaris wrote...

DA2 is one-sided and heavily slanted antimage (by the Devs own admission) because it really isn't a grey issue but the writers desperately want it to be one. It's never alright and never excusable to punish (let alone kill) people for what they are rather than who they are. DA2 uses every trick in the book to obscure this basic moral point that is a cornestone in modern western morality and ethics (which is the basis from which players make their choices).

-Polaris

Polaris,

It is comments like this from you, not the genocide talk, that I find the most frustrating.  You claim here that the Devs have admitted that the game is heavily slanted toward the Templars, but I read the thread you're referencing and that's not what was said.  I agree that some of the ways in which the dangerous, evil mages are portrayed feels a little artificial or unrealistic, even a little manipulative.  

But it's not slanted, except in the sense that you seem to feel like *any* attempt to try to make this into a difficult question by highlighting how dangerous magic can be is inherently an effort to try to convince players that the Templars are the good guys.  I think that's a fundamental misreading of what the developers are trying to do.  And you let this misreading twist your analysis of almost everything into the same point.  See my point here.

You also already did it earlier in this thread:

IanPolaris wrote...

Shinian2 wrote...

Good analysis. I also didnt like being told I was 'supporting Meredith' during the runup to meeting Grace, when the whole game I had been supporting mages. It felt like railroading.

It felt like railroading because it was railroading.  The Devs in Act 3 make it very clear which side you are supposed to agree with (The Genocidal Templars....and yes the Right of Annulment IS genocide right down to killing little children).

-Polaris

This is not true.  It was railroading because Grace's vendetta was manipulating the conspiracy the whole time.  It's Grace that is railroading the situation, not Bioware.

You've also been slowly escalating your rhetoric on this issue in ways don't make sense and I actually find dishonest.  There are two versions of this argument I have seen you make.

1)  Bioware is manipulating their players in an effort to get them to see a choice as grey that is not actually grey.

2)  Bioware wants their players to support the Templars.

I think you have a point in the first claim.  I disagree, but I understand where you're coming from.

The second, frankly, is ridiculous, and part of me thinks you know this.  If there's a canon Hawke later (not saying there will be), that character will have supported the mages, guaranteed.  

[IanPolaris]

Sorry but the game IS slanted. The Devs have admitted that DA2 gives an incredibly one-sided and slanted view of mages.

-Polaris

Edit:  I also happen to know (and I believe it's been said more than once) that the Devs were frustrated by most people (it was absolutely overwhelming I am told from the internet data gathering returns) picking the mage's side in DAO almost from 'default' (and I believe the Devs used that exact word...'default') so I do think there is basis for me to say that Bioware is pulling out the stops to try to get the players to pick the Templars.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 14 avril 2011 - 04:35 .

[darrylzero]

Let's take a look at the actual quote in question. You have the reference handy?

Edit: I read that thread about the choices, and I don't think your interpretation is very sensible.  At the very least, the distinction I drew between the two versions of your argument is still relevant.  Right?

Modifié par darrylzero, 14 avril 2011 - 04:40 .

[DaeJi]

The issue about the Rite of Annulment really comes down to this question: Would you kill a hundred people to save a million?

I myself would answer no to that question, and view the Rite as wrong. It was easy for me to pick the Mage's side (especially easy now that Dragon Age has become X-Men and the Circle is basically the X-Men).

[Xewaka]

DaeJi wrote...
The issue about the Rite of Annulment really comes down to this question: Would you kill a hundred people to save a million?
I myself would answer no to that question, and view the Rite as wrong. It was easy for me to pick the Mage's side (especially easy now that Dragon Age has become X-Men and the Circle is basically the X-Men).

Would you rather have the death of a million hanging in your conscience?
It's a no-win situation: Either way, the casualties will weight down on you.

IanPolaris wrote...
Sorry but the game IS slanted. The Devs have admitted that DA2 gives an incredibly one-sided and slanted view of mages.
-Polaris
Edit:  I also happen to know (and I believe it's been said more than once) that the Devs were frustrated by most people (it was absolutely overwhelming I am told from the internet data gathering returns) picking the mage's side in DAO almost from 'default' (and I believe the Devs used that exact word...'default') so I do think there is basis for me to say that Bioware is pulling out the stops to try to get the players to pick the Templars.

The default start of the game is a pro-mage position for Hawke, due to family ties. All else being equal, this position stands during the whole narrative arc. It is the writers' responsibility to give the side the character starts opposed to some validity, otherwise it's a non-choice.
All things considered, if you add DA:O and DA:2 together, the games' perspective is still slanted towards mages, for a simple reason: We have no pro-templar companion. The closest is Fenris, and it is out of a desire of revenge toward his former master, not because he actually believes in the Templars' work. Even the Templar companion in DA:O was anti-templar. And as players, we tend to pick the companions' opinion as the closest to fact, since it's the characters the player will have most contact with.
This is part of the reason why I want the character in DA 3 to be a Seeker. It would be a fresh new perspective, and it would be the chance to actually present the Chantry in a positive light.

Modifié par Xewaka, 14 avril 2011 - 10:16 .

[LobselVith8]

darrylzero wrote...

Let's take a look at the actual quote in question. You have the reference handy?

You mean about the developers thinking that people favored mages over templars? I remember Gaider stating as much:

David Gaider wrote...

One need only glance at your average templar vs. mage thread (previous to DA2 coming out, in particular) to see that most people fall on the side of the mages almost by default.

[AlexXIV]

LobselVith8 wrote...

darrylzero wrote...

Let's take a look at the actual quote in question. You have the reference handy?

You mean about the developers thinking that people favored mages over templars? I remember Gaider stating as much:

David Gaider wrote...

One need only glance at your average templar vs. mage thread (previous to DA2 coming out, in particular) to see that most people fall on the side of the mages almost by default.

I guess it is rather expectable that if you have one side being oppressed, the other side oppressors, people fall on the side of the underdog. So to side with the oppressors you are the first to come up with justifications while the oppressed side does have a natural advantage of being victim.

[Rifneno]

DaeJi wrote...

The issue about the Rite of Annulment really comes down to this question: Would you kill a hundred people to save a million?

I myself would answer no to that question, and view the Rite as wrong. It was easy for me to pick the Mage's side (especially easy now that Dragon Age has become X-Men and the Circle is basically the X-Men).

Not really.  I'd kill those 100 without hesitation in that scenario.  Probably 101 because I doubt I'd be able to live with myself afterwards despite not regretting it (if that makes sense).  That's part of the problem.  We don't know or even have a good ballpark of the danger posed by the mages nor on how many mages (both innocent and insane or evil) would be killed in the RoA.  Is there 75 mages or 25,000?  There's only one Circle in all of the Free Marches now that Starkhaven was torched so every non-apostate in the country is down there.  But how many people live in the country?  And how rare are mages overall?  1 in 25?  1 in 100?  1 in 1000?  We have almost no idea what the numbers on either side of the argument are.

[AlexXIV]

Rifneno wrote...

DaeJi wrote...

The issue about the Rite of Annulment really comes down to this question: Would you kill a hundred people to save a million?

I myself would answer no to that question, and view the Rite as wrong. It was easy for me to pick the Mage's side (especially easy now that Dragon Age has become X-Men and the Circle is basically the X-Men).

Not really.  I'd kill those 100 without hesitation in that scenario.  Probably 101 because I doubt I'd be able to live with myself afterwards despite not regretting it (if that makes sense).  That's part of the problem.  We don't know or even have a good ballpark of the danger posed by the mages nor on how many mages (both innocent and insane or evil) would be killed in the RoA.  Is there 75 mages or 25,000?  There's only one Circle in all of the Free Marches now that Starkhaven was torched so every non-apostate in the country is down there.  But how many people live in the country?  And how rare are mages overall?  1 in 25?  1 in 100?  1 in 1000?  We have almost no idea what the numbers on either side of the argument are.

I don't think it is a matter of numbers. It is about you being forced to end a life. I mean most of us eat meat, how many of us have killed an animal? I guess the number of people who eat meat but never killed an animal in their life is rather high. Honestly, if I couldn't buy meat in the supermarket I'd probably be vegetarian. Question is how easy is it to make a decision. If you have to kill one person, is it just pressing a button? Or do you have to look in his eyes while you push a dagger in his heart?

Modifié par AlexXIV, 14 avril 2011 - 12:43 .

[Rifneno]

AlexXIV wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

DaeJi wrote...

The issue about the Rite of Annulment really comes down to this question: Would you kill a hundred people to save a million?

I myself would answer no to that question, and view the Rite as wrong. It was easy for me to pick the Mage's side (especially easy now that Dragon Age has become X-Men and the Circle is basically the X-Men).

Not really.  I'd kill those 100 without hesitation in that scenario.  Probably 101 because I doubt I'd be able to live with myself afterwards despite not regretting it (if that makes sense).  That's part of the problem.  We don't know or even have a good ballpark of the danger posed by the mages nor on how many mages (both innocent and insane or evil) would be killed in the RoA.  Is there 75 mages or 25,000?  There's only one Circle in all of the Free Marches now that Starkhaven was torched so every non-apostate in the country is down there.  But how many people live in the country?  And how rare are mages overall?  1 in 25?  1 in 100?  1 in 1000?  We have almost no idea what the numbers on either side of the argument are.

I don't think it is a matter of numbers. It is about you being forced to end a life. I mean most of us eat meat, how many of us have killed an animal? I guess the number of people who eat meat but never killed an animal in their life is rather high. Honestly, if I couldn't buy meat in the supermarket I'd probably be vegetarian. Question is how easy is it to make a decision. If you have to kill one person, is it just pressing a button? Or do you have to look in his eyes while you push a dagger in his heart?

I don't know.  No matter what you have to kill lots of people.  Sure, IRL that would be a very big part of the decision but it doesn't really factor in to our decisions in a game game where we see people explode after being hit with a sword.  Besides, we do things as Hawke that are scarier than pushing a dagger into someone's heart, like pushing something other than a dagger into Isabela's something other than heart.

[AlexXIV]

Rifneno wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

DaeJi wrote...

The issue about the Rite of Annulment really comes down to this question: Would you kill a hundred people to save a million?

I myself would answer no to that question, and view the Rite as wrong. It was easy for me to pick the Mage's side (especially easy now that Dragon Age has become X-Men and the Circle is basically the X-Men).

Not really.  I'd kill those 100 without hesitation in that scenario.  Probably 101 because I doubt I'd be able to live with myself afterwards despite not regretting it (if that makes sense).  That's part of the problem.  We don't know or even have a good ballpark of the danger posed by the mages nor on how many mages (both innocent and insane or evil) would be killed in the RoA.  Is there 75 mages or 25,000?  There's only one Circle in all of the Free Marches now that Starkhaven was torched so every non-apostate in the country is down there.  But how many people live in the country?  And how rare are mages overall?  1 in 25?  1 in 100?  1 in 1000?  We have almost no idea what the numbers on either side of the argument are.

I don't think it is a matter of numbers. It is about you being forced to end a life. I mean most of us eat meat, how many of us have killed an animal? I guess the number of people who eat meat but never killed an animal in their life is rather high. Honestly, if I couldn't buy meat in the supermarket I'd probably be vegetarian. Question is how easy is it to make a decision. If you have to kill one person, is it just pressing a button? Or do you have to look in his eyes while you push a dagger in his heart?

I don't know.  No matter what you have to kill lots of people.  Sure, IRL that would be a very big part of the decision but it doesn't really factor in to our decisions in a game game where we see people explode after being hit with a sword.  Besides, we do things as Hawke that are scarier than pushing a dagger into someone's heart, like pushing something other than a dagger into Isabela's something other than heart.

I tend to ignore the combat animations. You kill people and after the battle they start talking to you. It is just an 'awesome' feature for those who enjoy it in my view. I judge my protagonists solely on the situation where they actually have a choice, as in for example dialogue options. Well I think Anders takes care of Isabella's ... diseases. I trust him well enough. Besides I wouldn't have a problem to kill her when I get a chance. She is everything but innocent, in any meaning of the word.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 14 avril 2011 - 01:00 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

[quote]David Gaider wrote...

One need only glance at your average templar vs. mage thread (previous to DA2 coming out, in particular) to see that most people fall on the side of the mages almost by default. [/quote][/quote]
And out of this quote, Polaris has established the entire foundation of his constant accusations, that BioWare is trying to corrupt the minds of the innocent, into taking the side of the evil Templars. Out of this quote, Polaris will start his revolution to bring down the evil that is BioWare.

Out of this quote... Polaris is talking out of his ass. ALL that is said in that quote is that in the DA.O perspective a lot of people sided with the mages. That's it. That is all that is said. How in the flying holy ****, do you go from there, to claiming BioWare is railroading us into supporting Templars?

[Camenae]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

One need only glance at your average templar vs. mage thread (previous to DA2 coming out, in particular) to see that most people fall on the side of the mages almost by default.

And out of this quote, Polaris has established the entire foundation of his constant accusations, that BioWare is trying to corrupt the minds of the innocent, into taking the side of the evil Templars. Out of this quote, Polaris will start his revolution to bring down the evil that is BioWare.

Out of this quote... Polaris is talking out of his ass. ALL that is said in that quote is that in the DA.O perspective a lot of people sided with the mages. That's it. That is all that is said. How in the flying holy ****, do you go from there, to claiming BioWare is railroading us into supporting Templars?

To be fair, I didn't see Polaris using that quote in particular.  I think it was LobselVith8 that started a whole thread on just that quote.

Modifié par Camenae, 14 avril 2011 - 02:34 .

[caridounette]

Xewaka wrote...

DaeJi wrote...
The issue about the Rite of Annulment really comes down to this question: Would you kill a hundred people to save a million?
I myself would answer no to that question, and view the Rite as wrong. It was easy for me to pick the Mage's side (especially easy now that Dragon Age has become X-Men and the Circle is basically the X-Men).

Would you rather have the death of a million hanging in your conscience?
It's a no-win situation: Either way, the casualties will weight down on you.

The Epilogue makes that rather clear: one way or an other you start a war that will have dire consequences. The only scenario i see as a win is if you really were in Anders boat and wanted to start a revolution at any cost.

If you wanted to protect mages, then youll feel bad for all the mages who will get crushed in their Circles or go crazy and start killing innocents while they try to free themselves (like in Kirkwall). Not the image id like to give of mages.

If you just wanted to keep order and kill 100 to save 1000 then you still sparked a revolution and 10000 will die of it anyhow.

Great job Hawke!


Apostates definitly need training to control their powers. Either my mage!Hawke or Bethany is gonna start a nice little apostate school to help the children i saved from the Circle before they set on fire all the barns around Kirkwall  

[FoggyEthan]

Going back to the OP, you speak for me. I was very annoyed with Orsino's quest. In Act III I saved most of the main plot quests to the end, and leading up to Orsino's quest I was pretty happy with the game.

Then it started feeling more and more arbitrary and constraining. I liked Anders's surprise move. I liked that there was a big choice. But the way it played out didn't work for me. And the Epilogue was just the icing on the cake.

[LobselVith8]

Camenae wrote...

To be fair, I didn't see Polaris using that quote in particular.  I think it was LobselVith8 that started a whole thread on just that quote.

That's accurate, Polaris didn't use that quote in particular. I thought darrylzero wanted to know why Ian assumed that the developers of Dragon Age thought people were frequently choosing mages, and I remembered when I read Gaider stating that comment. I know that Ian has had a number of back and forth posts with David Gaider on the issue of mages and templars for the past few months.

Regarding my thread, I disagreed with the idea that people chose mages automatically because it's not an accurate assessment of why people chose to side with the mages in the storyline, nothing more.

[AlexXIV]

caridounette wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

DaeJi wrote...
The issue about the Rite of Annulment really comes down to this question: Would you kill a hundred people to save a million?
I myself would answer no to that question, and view the Rite as wrong. It was easy for me to pick the Mage's side (especially easy now that Dragon Age has become X-Men and the Circle is basically the X-Men).

Would you rather have the death of a million hanging in your conscience?
It's a no-win situation: Either way, the casualties will weight down on you.

The Epilogue makes that rather clear: one way or an other you start a war that will have dire consequences. The only scenario i see as a win is if you really were in Anders boat and wanted to start a revolution at any cost.

If you wanted to protect mages, then youll feel bad for all the mages who will get crushed in their Circles or go crazy and start killing innocents while they try to free themselves (like in Kirkwall). Not the image id like to give of mages.

If you just wanted to keep order and kill 100 to save 1000 then you still sparked a revolution and 10000 will die of it anyhow.

Great job Hawke!


Apostates definitly need training to control their powers. Either my mage!Hawke or Bethany is gonna start a nice little apostate school to help the children i saved from the Circle before they set on fire all the barns around Kirkwall  

Actually I would almost bet that more circle mages fall prey to demons than apostates. Because you don't really see alot of possessed mages who were not circle mages before.

[darrylzero]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Camenae wrote...

To be fair, I didn't see Polaris using that quote in particular.  I think it was LobselVith8 that started a whole thread on just that quote.

That's accurate, Polaris didn't use that quote in particular. I thought darrylzero wanted to know why Ian assumed that the developers of Dragon Age thought people were frequently choosing mages, and I remembered when I read Gaider stating that comment. I know that Ian has had a number of back and forth posts with David Gaider on the issue of mages and templars for the past few months.

Regarding my thread, I disagreed with the idea that people chose mages automatically because it's not an accurate assessment of why people chose to side with the mages in the storyline, nothing more.

To me the relevant part for this particular debate is the idea that the devs were "frustrated" about how pro-mage the demographic was, and that's where I would like to see textual evidence. 

Here is what I suspect Bioware's thinking on the subject was like:

"Huh, everyone seems to naturally sympathize with the mages.  In fact, it's gotten to the point where it seems like they don't even understand why the Circles or the Rite of Annulment even exist.  We should help them understand the motivation of the Chantry and the Templars better.  Maybe we should remind them how dangerous magic is." 

I suspect that bothers Polaris in and of itself, but my suspicion is that he's mostly annoyed that magic is so dangerous in Thedas.  He feels like they're retconning how dangerous magic is, but only because he wants it to be otherwise, not because it's actually a retcon.  He feels like they're doing it in order to turn something which everyone should see as completely black and white into something that they want people to see as grey.

This is, of course, the inverse of the actual process by which these things were developed.  Bioware wrote the choice into DA2 that they did because they were interested from the beginning by the idea of a world in which magic is extremely dangerous (as well as a world in which socio-political structures respond in morally questionable ways in order limit that danger).  They're also interested in a world where people abuse that power, because that's our real experience of such powers, and the morally questionable ways in which people fight back against that abuse (Anders).

What I find doubly frustrating about all this is that I actually agree with Polaris, mostly.  I think Bioware did fail to make that choice sufficiently grey.  I can't imagine ever siding with the Templars.  And I think this for the same reason that he does, that no matter how many evil blood mages there might be in the circle, there's just no evidence that killing all the (probably, relatively) innocent mages as well is at all necessary. 

If there was a real hint of a dark conspiracy, or that many had already become abominations in ways that were difficult to detect, we might make that choice.  I probably still wouldn't, but I would be more torn than I was.  And I think that there they failed to make me feel the way they wanted me to feel.  But to go from that to saying that they've artificially made mages seem more dangerous than they really are is strange to me.  That's a central facet of the setting -- and one of its more interesting aspects in my opinion. 

Yes, Bioware wants us to know how dangerous magic is in Thedas, and they want us to understand how a society could come to develop oppressive (even immoral) socio-poliitcal structures (like the Rite of Annulment) in response to that.  They want that to be evidence of real and comprehensible flaws in human beings, rather than evidence of the pure monstrosity of the Chantry and Templars, true.  But that's all. 

At the end of the day, they wrote a story in which it is much easier to side with the mages than the Templars.  That wasn't an accident.  I think they also sympathize with the mages more, and I think it's pretty obvious that this is the case.  What they wanted, I suspect, was for it to feel like a choice with real stakes.  They wanted us to be a little afraid of the consequences of liberating mages from Templar control.

Ian is horrified, it seems to me, that Bioware can even see where the Templars are coming from and and that the devs want people to understand how human society was driven to create these oppressive institutions.  I think we should strive to understand how humans are driven to create oppressive structures, rather than simply villifying them, but I can see his point there.  If he could stick to that argument, he'd be making an interesting contribution.

But he can't seem to bring himself to argue honestly on the subject.  Instead, he throws in crazy ad hominem arguments to try to convince us that Bioware wants us to support the Templars (and maybe even has a somewhat racist, genocidal agenda to their game), which is of course crazy.

My goal here is to clearly delineate the two lines of argumentation that he seems so intent on muddying.  In doing so, I hope to save part of his point from himself.  Sorry, Ian, if that sounds snobby, but I think it's important.

[IanPolaris]

Darryulzero,

I think it's incredibly snobbish, insulting, and downright rude to assume that you can think for me better than I can think for myself.  In fact I consider your entire post to be downright hostile in that regard.  I will respond point by point so that others can clearly know what I THINK rather than what you claim that I think since you have crossed the line and seem feel comfortabe talking for me.  I don't do that to others, and I expect the same courtesy in return.

darrylzero wrote...
To me the relevant part for this particular debate is the idea that the devs were "frustrated" about how pro-mage the demographic was, and that's where I would like to see textual evidence. 

Here is what I suspect Bioware's thinking on the subject was like:

"Huh, everyone seems to naturally sympathize with the mages.  In fact, it's gotten to the point where it seems like they don't even understand why the Circles or the Rite of Annulment even exist.  We should help them understand the motivation of the Chantry and the Templars better.  Maybe we should remind them how dangerous magic is." 

They did show that in DAO and DAA.  The problem is the people didn't buy the ethical argument then.  It wasn't that Bioware didn't make their case.  It simply was that it wasn't accepted.  There is a difference here.

I suspect that bothers Polaris in and of itself, but my suspicion is that he's mostly annoyed that magic is so dangerous in Thedas.  He feels like they're retconning how dangerous magic is, but only because he wants it to be otherwise, not because it's actually a retcon.  He feels like they're doing it in order to turn something which everyone should see as completely black and white into something that they want people to see as grey.

That is not what is making me so upset.  I am upset that bioware is cheating by essentially making magic out in DA2 to be more dangerous than it actually is per their own game lore.  That seems rather far fetched until you read the Enigma of Kirkwall codex entries.  There we find out that Kirkwall is built (rather stupidly IMO) on top of a Tevinter created Hellmouth where the Veil is so thin it's almost non-existant.  It's already established lore that the rules regarding possession, abominations, demons and the like change where the veil is thin.

However, this is where bioware is being dishonest.  They hide this information from the player.  Thus if you weren't aready aware of the dangers of a thin veil (to everyone not just mages) and glossed over the codex entries (which most people do), then you would have a picture of magic that is not only inaccurate but wrong for most of Thedas.  That is stacking the deck and it's dishonest.

This is, of course, the inverse of the actual process by which these things were developed.  Bioware wrote the choice into DA2 that they did because they were interested from the beginning by the idea of a world in which magic is extremely dangerous (as well as a world in which socio-political structures respond in morally questionable ways in order limit that danger).  They're also interested in a world where people abuse that power, because that's our real experience of such powers, and the morally questionable ways in which people fight back against that abuse (Anders).

A far more interesting question is this:  How far will political powers and structures go in exaggerating a potential danger in order to hold real power.  That's the real interesting question and it's one that the Chantry consistantly fails at.

What I find doubly frustrating about all this is that I actually agree with Polaris, mostly.  I think Bioware did fail to make that choice sufficiently grey.  I can't imagine ever siding with the Templars.  And I think this for the same reason that he does, that no matter how many evil blood mages there might be in the circle, there's just no evidence that killing all the (probably, relatively) innocent mages as well is at all necessary. 

We agree at last.  Genocide is genocide.  When you deliberately kill an entire group for what they are (rather than what they've done) then the entire group had better be 100% guilty and we know that isn't so...not by a long chalk.

If there was a real hint of a dark conspiracy, or that many had already become abominations in ways that were difficult to detect, we might make that choice.  I probably still wouldn't, but I would be more torn than I was.  And I think that there they failed to make me feel the way they wanted me to feel.  But to go from that to saying that they've artificially made mages seem more dangerous than they really are is strange to me.  That's a central facet of the setting -- and one of its more interesting aspects in my opinion. 

They have.  Even the devs have admitted that the picture in DA2 you get of mages and magic is skewed and one-sided.  The mages you see are those that are already in rebellion which means you never see the mages that follow the rules (at least not as a sgnificant sample size).  Then there is the Enignma of Kirkwall where bioware deliberately tries to hide the fact that Kirkwall has a thin veil (and thus different rules) under the carpet so the casual player can't see it.  How is this NOT artificially inflating the danger of magic and how is this NOT dishonest?  It is.

Yes, Bioware wants us to know how dangerous magic is in Thedas, and they want us to understand how a society could come to develop oppressive (even immoral) socio-poliitcal structures (like the Rite of Annulment) in response to that.  They want that to be evidence of real and comprehensible flaws in human beings, rather than evidence of the pure monstrosity of the Chantry and Templars, true.  But that's all. 

Legal Genocide is pretty monstrous.  Just saying.  Having a Dev say that [insert minority group here] is not innocent because they are a [insert minority group here] is something I never though I'd see publically seen in the 21st century.  This isn't the PoV of a peasent in Thedas (that would be understandable and excuseable).  That's the personal opinion of the lead writer of this game....and I for one was appalled.

At the end of the day, they wrote a story in which it is much easier to side with the mages than the Templars.  That wasn't an accident.  I think they also sympathize with the mages more, and I think it's pretty obvious that this is the case.  What they wanted, I suspect, was for it to feel like a choice with real stakes.  They wanted us to be a little afraid of the consequences of liberating mages from Templar control.

Then they failed.

Ian is horrified, it seems to me, that Bioware can even see where the Templars are coming from and and that the devs want people to understand how human society was driven to create these oppressive institutions.  I think we should strive to understand how humans are driven to create oppressive structures, rather than simply villifying them, but I can see his point there.  If he could stick to that argument, he'd be making an interesting contribution.

Frankly yes.  Genocide is genocide.  Words have meaning.  If you want to discuss oppressive structures and how people in the game could support something like this (good people for what they thought were good reasons have supported evil institutions for much of history), that would be fine by me.  I also have no issues in a game of being able to mak evil choices.  However, when the game writers themselves start believing their own apologia.......then the alarm bells start ringing....

But he can't seem to bring himself to argue honestly on the subject.  Instead, he throws in crazy ad hominem arguments to try to convince us that Bioware wants us to support the Templars (and maybe even has a somewhat racist, genocidal agenda to their game), which is of course crazy.

You are doing here and before exactly what you just accused me of.  Just saying.

My goal here is to clearly delineate the two lines of argumentation that he seems so intent on muddying.  In doing so, I hope to save part of his point from himself.  Sorry, Ian, if that sounds snobby, but I think it's important.

My goal is to clarify what I think and believe before somone else defines it for me which I consider to be rude and hostile.

-Polaris