359 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

Uhm.. When is it stated in the lore that magic isn't dangerous? If anything DA:O failed to show magic as dangerous, as the lore states it to be. DA2 corrects that.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Uhm.. When is it stated in the lore that magic isn't dangerous? If anything DA:O failed to show magic as dangerous, as the lore states it to be. DA2 corrects that.

No one ever said that it wasn't and DAO and DAA did show it.  However, it seems to be primarily dangerous if you are either untrained or poorly trained (a point no one disputes) which means magic should be regulated and mages trained (again points no one disputes).  I have said for a long time as have others that the Chantry has taken advantage of this and "cried havok" to exaggerate (at best) these fears for political power.

-Polaris

[caridounette]

darrylzero wrote...

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.

I love your line of thinking sir  

It can be easy to side with the <Freedom for all> way of thinking when you dont actually feel the consequences and that its the storyteller's role to make the players feel ( i.e. your mom getting killied, those mages with good intent in your party (Merril and Anders), etc).

I do appreciate siding with the Templars because it gives a sense to a series of more or less related events. Its like taking your frustration about all thats happened in Kirkwall and aiming it at the mages (well not unlike Anders aiming his vengeance at the Chantry). It really puts you in the chair of the guy who decides an atomic bomb should be used. Great roleplay moment. Siding with the mages in the end puts you in a defensive position that is much easier to hold then the attacking position the Templars take. All you really do is wave the <benefice of the doubt> flag. Still its gonna be my canon playtrough: mage!Hawke wants freedom for all.

Just to be clear am not saying its ok to genocide the mages, simply that its great the game lets you experience the escalade of events that can make you feel like its necessary. Too bad Act 3 is painful to play as promage because its going nowhere and mage Hawke is so almighty in the face of temptation compared to the garden variety mages. I would have liked to experience something special there too.
 

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Uhm.. When is it stated in the lore that magic isn't dangerous? If anything DA:O failed to show magic as dangerous, as the lore states it to be. DA2 corrects that.

No one ever said that it wasn't and DAO and DAA did show it.  However, it seems to be primarily dangerous if you are either untrained or poorly trained (a point no one disputes) which means magic should be regulated and mages trained (again points no one disputes).  I have said for a long time as have others that the Chantry has taken advantage of this and "cried havok" to exaggerate (at best) these fears for political power.

-Polaris

The lore has said that no matter how trained you are, magic will always be a danger. DA:O failed to show this aspect. DA2 corrects that. If anything DA2 is more true to the lore, than DA:O were in the regards of magic.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The lore has said that no matter how trained you are, magic will always be a danger. DA:O failed to show this aspect. DA2 corrects that. If anything DA2 is more true to the lore, than DA:O were in the regards of magic.

No.  The lore claimed that but only when using the voice of the Chantry or those subject to the Chantry.  If DA2 corrects this so well, then why does DA2 deliberately hide that Kirkwall is build where the veil to the fade is so thin, it almost doesn't exist?

We KNOW that the rules change when that is the case, but you have to dig to find that information when (if bioware were being honest) that information should be presented obviously and with the important emphasis that it deserves.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The lore has said that no matter how trained you are, magic will always be a danger. DA:O failed to show this aspect. DA2 corrects that. If anything DA2 is more true to the lore, than DA:O were in the regards of magic.

No.  The lore claimed that but only when using the voice of the Chantry or those subject to the Chantry.  If DA2 corrects this so well, then why does DA2 deliberately hide that Kirkwall is build where the veil to the fade is so thin, it almost doesn't exist?

We KNOW that the rules change when that is the case, but you have to dig to find that information when (if bioware were being honest) that information should be presented obviously and with the important emphasis that it deserves.

-Polaris

Apparently this "voice of the chantry" weren't half as wrong as you wanted it to be. And DA2 does not "hide" it from the player. Any player intend on exploring for just a bit will find at least 1-2 pieces of the enigma.
Magic is always dangerous, no matter how trained the mage is. It is exactly as the lore states it.
But apparently it all comes down to you, being unable to accept that the Chantry was right.

[darrylzero]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

Fair enough, I can see where you're coming from here.  I hope it was clear enough, though, when I was representing my own interpretation and when I was trying to be more objective.  My post was intentionally riddled with "I thinks" and "I feels" so as to make clear that I was not in fact speaking for you but trying to interpret your argument as I understood it.  Certainly, I think taking the time to clarify the differences between the two, as you've done here, would be important in either case. 

I am going to edit a bit as I go here, in the interest of brevity.  I hope you will find that I have done so fairly.  My apologies if you feel otherwise. 

IanPolaris wrote...

They did show that [magic is dangerous] 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 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. 

I would argue that the difference you're claiming here is pretty subjective.  How dangerous does magic have to be in order for Bioware to have made their case?  That depends on how dangerous it is.  I think that something like the game lore here is always evolving and new information about the dangers of magic (or the perniciousness of the Chantry and Templars) could always come to light without violating lore.  I will happily concede, though, that there are inconsistencies in the way that the dangers of magic (and especially blood magic) are presented.

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.

It's only stacking the deck if 1) there are few if any other places in Thedas where the veil is similarly thin and 2) they never reveal how exceptional Kirkwall is.  If I side with the mages not knowing that they're all going to turn into abominations in short order and their doing so makes a mockery of my decision, I'm fine with that.  My Hawke didn't have access to all that information, so he was not as afraid of those innocent mages as maybe he should have been. 

I'm teasing a bit because I know how differently you interpret this, but I do think it's important to acknowledge that there is more than one way to view the meaning of this hidden knowledge.  However, I agree that it would be more interesting if they found a better way to portray this information.  This is one of the situations where I see error and you see malice.

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.

I am also more interested in this question, though I think both are fascinating.  I actually think the Chantry sometimes seems a little too much like it's trying to do the right thing (Elthina/Cullen, division, not Meredith obviously), compared to what I would expect in the real world.  But all of my characters tend to be very suspicious of the Chantry and Templars, even though they're mostly rogues rather than mages.

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.

This is only sort of a point of agreement between us.  Well, it's full agreement about the real world and partial agreement about Thedas.  I would personally frame it not so much as mages being killed for who they are but for the (potential) danger they represent.  Therefore, their guilt or innocence is not so relevant to me.  I am more inclined to take a utilitarian kind of stance on this one, whichever results is less loss of life (though the Templars are mostly excepted from this calculation for me because they are the aggressors).  Or the higher probability of the smaller loss of life, since we can't ultimately know.

If I believed Meredith that a flood of abominations were about to come out of the Circle and wreak havoc, I might be willing to massacre mages to protect the rest of the population.  It would make me feel a little evil, but I get it.  That's irrelevant in DA2, though, because she is so untrustworthy at this point in the game that I can't imagine sharing her fear.

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 significant 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.

This is the quote I've been trying (and failing) to find so that I can reinterpret it in light of this discussion.  However,  assuming you've got the intent of the comment basically correct, I still don't really see the problem here.  I think the sense that a lot of the terrible things that mages do in DA2 is driven in part by the depredations of the Templars comes through pretty clearly.  Should I sympathize more with the mages who stick in the Circle and follow the rules?  I don't.  I sympathize at least as much with those who rebelled or ran.  So, I don't agree that there's anything dishonest about portraying mostly mages in revolt.  Why shouldn't they be?

With regard to hiding the existence of the hellmouth, I'm of two minds.  This doesn't bother me vis-a-vis DA2.  My character either finds out about this or doesn't and cares or doesn't.  What magic is like in the rest of Thedas doesn't affect how I feel about the choice at the end of the game.  What matters is magic in Kirkwall.  Now, if it never becomes obvious how Kirkwall is exceptional is, you might have a point with regard to the franchise as a whole.  However, I think we should seriously consider the possibility that there may be many places where the veil is extremely thin, and that might have to be a part of our moral calculus.

OK, I have to stop here, for now, because I'm running late for dinner.  I'll try to continue later.  My apologies that you felt like I was putting words in your mouth.  I think this was helpful in clarifying a number of positions, though. 

Modifié par darrylzero, 15 avril 2011 - 05:48 .

[TJPags]

You all do realize that the situation in DA:O (I assume we're talking the Broken Circle quest here, right?) is somewhat different that what we're presented with in DA2 initially, no?

In Broken Circle, we hear - but do not see - that the Circle is overun. The Circle is sealed. Nothing can get out. Gregor is waiting for the okay to kill everything inside. You get the option, right there, to go an kill everyone - people you know nothing about, and may need to save Connor in Redcliffe - or to go in and see if people can be saved. It is made clear that, if you try to save people and fail, you won't be allowed out.

To me, that's not siding with the mages over the templars. That's choosing to see if you can save some people in a situation that is inherently under control. We really haven't seen much magic going on up to this point, other than Connor. The bad part of magic - possession, demons, etc - we see primarily IN the Tower DURING this quest.

In DA2, we are hit over the head with demons, blood mages, and abominations every time we turn around. Throughout the game. All leading up to the point where we make our choice - when NOTHING is under control, all hell is about to break loose (perhaps literally) and we have to decide.

So I see no reason to say that DAO implied people were mage sympathizers, even if they overwhelmingly saved the mages. I also see no reason for Bioware to have gone over the top the other way because of that.

Did they go over the top? Sure, maybe they did. Is that any reason to attack them, or claim they WANT people to think "genocide" is cool? Not at all.

[Rifneno]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Apparently this "voice of the chantry" weren't half as wrong as you wanted it to be. And DA2 does not "hide" it from the player. Any player intend on exploring for just a bit will find at least 1-2 pieces of the enigma.
Magic is always dangerous, no matter how trained the mage is. It is exactly as the lore states it.
But apparently it all comes down to you, being unable to accept that the Chantry was right.

Circular logic is great.  Why?  Because circular logic told me it is!

[stobie]

If Bioware is scheming (in pure, demonic fashion) to make us side with the templars & fear the mages, then why are so many of us siding with the mages? Rather than grand conspiracies, isn't it a wee bit more likely that they hoped people would be more evenly divided? (this encourages more replays) Given that it's established that more people side with mages, they must not be very good at shoving subliminal 'hate mages' imagery at us.

Personally, I think they set up some pretty big road blocks to siding with the templars. Even after the 2 Bad Templars are removed (Kerras & Alrik) it's distinctly implied that the Circle mages are being abused, and Meredith has apparently already executed 3 innocent mages as an example (this before she gets the idol, according to Thrask.) We know there are very young children in circles - not too many of us are going to say, "Yup, too bad! You're dead, kid!"

Cullen says at one point that mages are manipulating people's natural sympathy, and now templars are more reviled by the citizenry. That was really good, and I wish they'd gone on with that a bit. (Say, someone is accused of abuse, and is thoroughly proven innocent) That Meredith & the GC denied the Right of Annulment might be something in that direction, but it doesn't go far, after you learn these other things. He says mages are being manipulative, but I didn't really see it. I saw crazy, deranged, power-mad, but not a deliberate scheme to get sympathy while preying on others.

I assumed they made the Kirkwall mages more dangerous because few people sided with the templars in Origins. (maybe if they had mages use 'overwhelm,' I would have considered it - I did crack once & wipe out the werewolves after that one spot where a bunch of shadow were-fiends overwhelm your entire party... but I redid it, preyed upon by a guilty conscience. I never considered annulling the mages.)

I think they wanted a grey area, definitely, as we had perhaps with the dwarves in Origins. (though I'd guess the majority went with Harrowmont there, too - and I did both, but Bhelen just felt wrong.) I'm going to make myself try a templar-siding run, but I'd still have to evade letting Kerras live, or sending Feynriel to a Circle that I *know* abuses kids.

[IanPolaris]

stobie,

I seem to recall that most people picked King Bhelen actually (and that certainly is the 'default Hero of Fereldan choice which AFAIK is the compiled 'most taken' route in DAO). The Orzammar choice WAS an interesting and morally grey choice especially for the non-dwarf with very little initial information. Ultimately it came down to this: Do you pick a person who personally seems to an honorable but weak leader but is completely devoted to a system that is falling apart and I think can be justly called evil (esp in th way it treats the casteless), or do I pick an openly amoral scheme who would (and did!) sell out his own brother to get ahead, but has the political and personal strength and desire to actually reform and change that system albeit for his own ends?

That is something to think about.

-Polaris

[Benchmark]

Why is it so hard to understand that magic is inherently unstable and dangerous? Mages are closer to the fade than regular people. They attract spirits like a beacon. They live their entire lives with someone whispering in their ear.

"Hey, try this. It can help make everything better. The first ones free."

Any mage that is weak enough, desperate enough, angry enough, stupid enough.... womp raaaawrghh YOU KNOW NOTHING OF MAGIC!!!

[Rabies]

Yeah, magic is definitely dangerous. I think this point is what was harped on the most in DA2, and it became the focus of the story - unlike DAO. It does make it hard to side with the templars though when everyone of them portrays himself as a sociopath who makes a mess in his pants whenever he gets the chance to tranquil a mage. The only exception to this is Thrask - who you unfortunately can't save from being betrayed by the very mages he had decided to help protect from Meredith.

However, this does make it difficult to side with the mages after the initial quests. They constantly are turning against you. They're losing control. They're biting the hand that is reaching out to help them. This makes it a very difficult moral dilemma, but I think the main reason that we see a lot of people siding with the mages are a few key points:

1) The templars are an established Order. This means that we tend to color them all with the same paintbrush. We take the actions of a single templar and instinctively use it to judge how the rest of that Order will act - whether or not this is true.

2) The mages are individuals - all. The instances where we encounter them, we're not encountering an established Order or group. We're encountering individuals who are individually pleading their cases to us. This makes us more sympathetic to them, and we're less hesitant to color them all with the same brush. This is especially true for us American players I feel.

3) The mages don't show their dangerous side usually until after you've helped them. The templars come off as pricks. The mages give puppy eyes and scream oppression first.

4) The templars in Kirkwall are genuinely going too far. We've got fanatics on both sides. They're unwilling to compromise or see the points the other is making. The mages might be better controlled or more willing to help against their own corrupt members if they weren't so frightened of the templars making them Tranquil - something that is outlawed by the Chantry. It was illegal for Meredith to make mages Tranquil after completing their Harrowing.

5) There's just something more appealing about siding with the underdog against an oppressive regime than siding with that regime against legitimately dangerous people. We have a tendency to root for the little guy.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]TJPags wrote...

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]

I would say that's where you and I disagree on the Kirkwall Circle. I don't think the mage antagonists that Hawke faces are sufficient reason to wipe out the Circle of Magi, especially when we know so little about the actual mages who are living in the Gallows.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

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]

I don't dispute that Grace was mentally unstable and abused her abilities, but a counterpoint to a Circle mage like Grace is an apostate like Bethany, who doesn't misuse her abilities and is mentally stable throughout the storyline. That speaks volumes to me in addressing that not all mages are the same. Bethany passed the Harrowing and is mentoring children in the use of their magical abilities.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

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

You're welcome to bring Idunna up, but if we know next to nothing about the mages living in the Gallows, how can Idunna or any other apostate in Kirkwall attest to the prevelance of blood mages and the use of the Right of Annulment when we have little to no information on the mages who comprise the Circle of Magi?

Considering we have no idea what the mages within the Gallows are like because we're denied an opportunity to actually enter the areas where the mages live, the only mages we frequently encounter are the antagonists like Idunna. It's no different than dealing with the carta or the multitude of criminal organizations comprised of ordinary humans - the people Hawke comes across tend to be criminals who try to kill him.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

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

Another apostate who has no clear connection to the local Circle of Magi, though, and her goals for the templars aren't a compelling reason to support the Right of Annulment against the Circle mages if we're looking at data on illegal mages.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

I'm pretty certain his dead wife would attest to his insanity if he didn't kill her for some insipid blood magic ritual.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Evelina was a mage from the Ferelden Circle who went insane, like Huon, after her time in the Gallows. I don't think it's a coincidence two sane people became mentally unbalanced after being thrown into the Circle of Kirkwall.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

We have a lack of information on the apostates because little is provided on them. Perhaps the writers would have been better suited to flesh out these story elements instead of recycling the Harvester as a nemesis. I already played GoA, I didn't need to battle the same boss again.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

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.  [/quote]

I've argued that specific examples, like Huon and Evelina, are caused because of their time in the Gallows when we know they were sane beforehand, and in the case of Evelina she was a member of the Circle of Ferelden and didn't break until her time in the Circle governed by Knight-Commander Meredith. I don't think every mage who crosses the line does so because of the templars, but given the dictatorship of Meredith and the Band of Three, Kirkwall probably isn't the best example.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

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?[/quote]

The disagreement you and I have is that I don't think the actions of mage antagonists condemn an entire population of people any more than the carta represents all dwarves or the myraid of criminal organizations and slavers represent all humans. We know relatively little about the actual mages in the Gallows, and I don't see any sufficient evidence to condemn the Circle of Kirkwall to death, especially when Meredith makes it clear that she's invoking the Right of Annulment because of what Anders did.

[caridounette]

stobie wrote...

If Bioware is scheming (in pure, demonic fashion) to make us side with the templars & fear the mages, then why are so many of us siding with the mages? Rather than grand conspiracies, isn't it a wee bit more likely that they hoped people would be more evenly divided? (this encourages more replays) Given that it's established that more people side with mages, they must not be very good at shoving subliminal 'hate mages' imagery at us.

 

Youre right it does encourage replays



And to continue on the seemingly conspiracy to force ppl one side of the other:  

Even if the narrative tries to make ppl side with templars... what about it ? Is there a law somewhere that makes it so the ppl who tell a story cant choose the angle they present it ?

Of course you need to stack the odds so that destroying the Circle becomes a viable option to roleplay (the had to kill your mom over the issue, thats tells alot). But as storytellers, the game developers have all the right to present the story to way they like. And thanks god they did because it would be much harder to choose the Templar side.

Could it have been done in a better way? Probably. Is it a fault to make both options availible? certainly not.

[darrylzero]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

This is where I think the lens of guilt/innocence can be unhelpful and where I think comparing mages to ethnic groups is not quite right.  There are certainly important similarities (and intentional ones, I think), and I think it's valid for mages to feel like they're being targeted for who they are (they certainly have no choice in the matter).  However, I also think it matters that blood magic, abominations (and what appears to be a powerful link between blood magic and abominations, which I think may have been an unfortunate choice) have no real-world equivalents.  

So, mages are not quite being targeted just for being mages but for the potential threat they represent.  It's a threat that some will be prejudicially paranoid about and others will manipulate in the service of petty hatreds (or their own political fortunes).  But genocide is partially a crime of intent, and I think that at least in theory the Rite of Annulment does not qualify.  The intent there is to neutralize a threat (which, unlike in real world cases of genocide, is not imagined).  I think this provokes two questions vis-a-vis the situation in DA2:

1)  How real is the threat represented by the circle mages?

2)  If it is real, is it really necessary to kill innocents in order to neutralize that threat?

With regard to #1, I think the devs are trying to set up a situation in which we don't know for sure but there is good reason to suspect  that the threat could be real.  I mostly missed this on my playthrough because I'd forgotten all about the note from O at Quentin's, but I think it's reasonable (particularly since the veil is so thin in Kirkwall).  It wouldn't matter for me, though, because of criteria #2.  I have a lot of trouble seeing it as necessary to kill everyone to root out the truly dangerous ones.  

So, I am against the Rite of Annulment generally, because I have trouble buying that it's ever necessary to actually kill them all in order to be sure.  But while I see the connection to genocide, I'm not convinced it's inherently the same thing.

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.

I agree.

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....

This is an important distinction you're making here, and I agree that this could be troubling, depending.  I guess I'm not convinced that DG actually stated that he believes his own apologia, exactly.  Can someone find that exact quote again?

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.

Yes, I may have been a little ad hominem here, and I was certainly quite rude at the close.  Let me see if I can rephrase  what I mean:

I feel like many of your arguments in the past (though not here) have been distinctly slippery.  In particular, I think you have a tendency to present what seem to me pretty radical interpretations of developer quotes and in-game lore as if it's the only valid reading.  

What I did to you earlier was just as accusatory, I'll admit, and may have been slippery in a similar sense (in that I reframed your words into my own interpretation of them, rather than letting them speak for themselves).  This results from feeling overwhelmed by the prospect of finding all the quotes I wanted to respond to rather than an attempt to spin your words, but I'm sure you'd say the same and it may not be much of a defense either way.  One important difference, for me, is that I don't feel like I represented my interpretation of your words as the only possible interpretation, though I'll understand if that doesn't appease you much.

To get back to the substance of the debate, I think we're in agreement that it's at least unclear in DA2 and probably quite unlikely that killing all the mages would be necessary in order to root out the crazy, evil blood mages that may be hiding there.  That settles the moral question for both of us, I think, and I'd go so far as to say that it should settle the moral question for everyone (not necessarily for Hawke, of course, but I think it should be clear to players).

Where I have a lot of trouble with your argument is when you claim that Bioware is cheating by exaggerating the threat itself.  They define the threat!  And I think their goal all along has been for the threat to be severe enough that it makes Chantry and Templar actions comprehensible.  

But I also think it's no accident that the harshness of Templar rule in Kirkwall seems to be making everything worse.  They wrote it that way, I imagine, because they agree that the draconian behavior and outright abuse in Kirkwall are wrong and ultimately self-defeating.  They just want us to be able to understand how things got to that point.  I think.

Modifié par darrylzero, 15 avril 2011 - 06:37 .

[Benchmark]

I think you are reading way to much into DG's comments. The DAO series introduced you to the idea of Templars and Mages. It showed very well a brief image of why magic is useful and why it is dangerous. It showed the logic in why a system like the Circle and a system like the Templars would be required as insurance to the danger.

Apparently the DAO writers were a little sad that they hadn't fully imparted on the player just how dangerous magic was. They expected that siding with the Templars in DAO to be just as logical as siding with the Templars. When I played that portion, it seemed to me that agreeing to go into the tower was the middle path. I didn't feel that I was opposing the Templars, I felt I was helping them restore order.

In DA2 they wanted to make this decision a pivotal point. To do so they had to make it an obvious choice and they had to present the logic of both sides. I think they failed again, because even though I support Templars in spirit I couldn't side with them at the end. The ending became too much about how much a loon Meredith was and less about how needed the Templars were. DG knows that so he is doing a little backpedal in public releases to try and make some pro Templar explanations that weren't well presented in the game.

At least that's how it looks to me.

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The disagreement you and I have is that I don't think the actions of mage antagonists condemn an entire population of people any more than the carta represents all dwarves or the myraid of criminal organizations and slavers represent all humans. We know relatively little about the actual mages in the Gallows, and I don't see any sufficient evidence to condemn the Circle of Kirkwall to death, especially when Meredith makes it clear that she's invoking the Right of Annulment because of what Anders did.

I've cut your quote down to this, because I agree that this seems to be the fundamental disagreement between us.

Here's my take on this issue:  If I'm presented with a group of people, I have to judge them on those that I see.  In DA2, I'm presented with many mages.  The overwhelming majority of those mages seem to be blood mages, or otherwise insane lunatics.  And by overwhelming majority, I'm looking at every mage we meet with the exception of Bethany, Emile, and Ella.  And I include in that "overwhelming majority" all the mages who seem to turn into abmoninations during the final battle, even if you side with the mages.

You seem to look on this issue, and think "it doesn't represent every mage in the Gallows".  Now, that may be true.  But I don't see any of those mages.  I don't know how many there are.  There could be 100, there could be 4.  We simply don't know.

I can't judge based on something I don't see.  So I can never accept that those mages we DO see are the abberation, rather than a fair representation of the population of the Gallows.

And when I look at something that's 97% bad, I think "wipe it out and start over".

[IanPolaris]

TJPags,

And you don't think that Bioware very deliberately skewed the sort of mages you did see (esp in Act III) to encourage you to draw just that conclusion? Of course they did.

-Polaris

[TJPags]

IanPolaris wrote...

TJPags,

And you don't think that Bioware very deliberately skewed the sort of mages you did see (esp in Act III) to encourage you to draw just that conclusion? Of course they did.

-Polaris

Did they?

Let's assume for a moment they did.

Why do you think they did?

[GavrielKay]

TJPags wrote...

Here's my take on this issue:  If I'm presented with a group of people, I have to judge them on those that I see.  In DA2, I'm presented with many mages.  The overwhelming majority of those mages seem to be blood mages, or otherwise insane lunatics.  And by overwhelming majority, I'm looking at every mage we meet with the exception of Bethany, Emile, and Ella.  And I include in that "overwhelming majority" all the mages who seem to turn into abmoninations during the final battle, even if you side with the mages.

Or, you could not "judge" them and just realize that the group contains at least a few bad elements.  Those mages may be 5, 50 or 90 percent of the total - they never give enough information to determine that.  But I don't think you're ever obligated to judge an entire group based on those you happen to encounter.  To me, that's what prejudice is all about.  When prejudice colors your every day conversations with new members of that group, so be it.  I just don't think it's a valid justification for killing every man, woman and child that has been held hostage in a certain building.  People live with potential danger all the time, you can never be perfectly safe.  Thus, as far as I'm concerned, my illusion of safety shouldn't be paid for with the lives of however many mages are still in the Gallows at the point Meredith wants to kill them all. 

[TJPags]

GavrielKay wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Here's my take on this issue:  If I'm presented with a group of people, I have to judge them on those that I see.  In DA2, I'm presented with many mages.  The overwhelming majority of those mages seem to be blood mages, or otherwise insane lunatics.  And by overwhelming majority, I'm looking at every mage we meet with the exception of Bethany, Emile, and Ella.  And I include in that "overwhelming majority" all the mages who seem to turn into abmoninations during the final battle, even if you side with the mages.

Or, you could not "judge" them and just realize that the group contains at least a few bad elements.  Those mages may be 5, 50 or 90 percent of the total - they never give enough information to determine that.  But I don't think you're ever obligated to judge an entire group based on those you happen to encounter.  To me, that's what prejudice is all about.  When prejudice colors your every day conversations with new members of that group, so be it.  I just don't think it's a valid justification for killing every man, woman and child that has been held hostage in a certain building.  People live with potential danger all the time, you can never be perfectly safe.  Thus, as far as I'm concerned, my illusion of safety shouldn't be paid for with the lives of however many mages are still in the Gallows at the point Meredith wants to kill them all. 

But the game requires me to make a judgment call.  So yes, I have to judge.

Also, you use prejudice incorrectly.  Prejudice is an opinion formed without basis, without information.

I have basis, and I have information - the behavior of the mages I see.

[Paeyne]

TJPags wrote...

And when I look at something that's 97% bad, I think "wipe it out and start over".

Even if this was true, you are effectively saying that the 3% who have done nothing wrong are not worth saving.

I am afraid that I can't agree with this.

Now, I will readily agree that determining who those 3% are and effectivly saving that 3% may be nigh impossible under the circumstances, but to simply write that 3% off as unfortunate casualties strikes me as somewhat callous.  Perhaps only one mage in the entire tower is "innocent" but I hold that that single innocent person is worth at least some effort unless the circumstances completely preclude that.  I am unconvinced that those circumstances exist in this case.

IanPolaris wrote...

TJPags,

And you don't think
that Bioware very deliberately skewed the sort of mages you did see (esp
in Act III) to encourage you to draw just that conclusion? Of course
they did.

-Polaris

Why ask a question if your just going to answer it for him?  If you don't care what his answer is, why ask the question in the first place?

Since all the mages that follow the rules remain in the tower for the entirety of the game, when exactly would Hawke have an opportunity to meet all these innocent mages?  Does that mean that Bioware is deliberately skewing the mages you see or does that simply mean that Hawke (who never spent any substantial time within the Circle tower) never had an occasion to meet any of these people.

[Paeyne]

TJPags wrote...

But the game requires me to make a judgment call.  So yes, I have to judge.

Also, you use prejudice incorrectly.  Prejudice is an opinion formed without basis, without information.

I have basis, and I have information - the behavior of the mages I see.

I agree on all three counts.

We are constrainted by the limits of the game.

There is no opportunity to save the mages that may be innocent.  (Actually Hawke seems to be extremely bad at saving anyone).

The choice is absolute, Mage or Templar, with the only alternative to those two choices the power button.

[TJPags]

Paeyne wrote...

TJPags wrote...

And when I look at something that's 97% bad, I think "wipe it out and start over".

Even if this was true, you are effectively saying that the 3% who have done nothing wrong are not worth saving.

I am afraid that I can't agree with this.

Now, I will readily agree that determining who those 3% are and effectivly saving that 3% may be nigh impossible under the circumstances, but to simply write that 3% off as unfortunate casualties strikes me as somewhat callous.  Perhaps only one mage in the entire tower is "innocent" but I hold that that single innocent person is worth at least some effort unless the circumstances completely preclude that.  I am unconvinced that those circumstances exist in this case.

I'd have no problem saving that hypothetical 3% if there were a way to do so.  But as you point out in your other post, the game doesn't let me do that.
 
So, I'm stuck with a choice of killing 3% good people, or letting 97% bad run free.