945 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Benchmark wrote...

I already went into a huge debate to show that what you are doing right now is misrepresenting DGs comment for use in a way it wasn't intended.  Also that you aren't applying it correctly to the situation and are downright ignoring all information given in game.

I'm applying it to the very scenerio he addressed.

Benchmark wrote...

Don't "state" what happens to the mages that surrender or to Bethany. Your snip doesn't prove what you want it to. Stop using it while attempting to do that.

It isn't a snip, it's the entire post of what he stated. I simply don't fan fic that the templars aren't killing mages in the Right of Annulment.

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

As with many DG posts, this one is becoming twisted to meet the ends of the people posting it.

It seems more like the people who supported the templars want to pretend that nobody dies when Meredith enacts the Right of Annulment.

Perhaps they are.  You seem to be using it to further your position now.

It's being twisted either way.

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

He clearly says that during the Right of Anullment, prisoners are not taken.  Yet Cullen will take prisoners.

And Gaider already addressed the alternative to killing mages in the Right of Annulment.

As I said above, he also said NO prisoners are taken.  Yet Cullen takes prisoners.

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

He clearly says any mages who survive "could theoretically be made Tranquil".  Which is not a definitive statement of what happens.  And clearly doesn't contemplate mages being taken prisoner.

Because templars are supposed to kill mages, as he addressed when he stated that they have a "take no prisoners" policy, and we already know Cullen has said mages can't be treated like people and are weapons.

And we already know Cullen does, in fact, take prisoners.

So since he's not abiding by the rules as stated by DG when it comes to prisoners, is it certain he will abide by those rules regarding making them tranquil?

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

Perhaps they are.  You seem to be using it to further your position now.

It's being twisted either way.

It's not being twisted if it's applied to the very scenerio he described where mages aren't killed in the Right of Annulment, and he said tranquility would be the alternative.

TJPags wrote...

As I said above, he also said NO prisoners are taken.  Yet Cullen takes prisoners.

And Gaider already addressed the alternative to death in the Right of Annulment: tranquility.

TJPags wrote...

And we already know Cullen does, in fact, take prisoners.

So since he's not abiding by the rules as stated by DG when it comes to prisoners, is it certain he will abide by those rules regarding making them tranquil?

Since Cullen already stated mages can't be treated like people, are weapons, and doesn't seem to have a problem with the Right of Annulment when you address Ser Alrik's "Tranquility Solution," I don't see why you'd think Cullen would do otherwise. Also, mage survivors are only mentioned in the ending where Hawke sided with the mages.

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Perhaps they are.  You seem to be using it to further your position now.

It's being twisted either way.

It's not being twisted if it's applied to the very scenerio he described where mages aren't killed in the Right of Annulment, and he said tranquility would be the alternative.

It's being twisted since DG said that prisoners are not taken during a RoA.  Yet Cullen takes prisoners.  So clearly, either DG is wrong, or Cullen is making up his own rules for this event.

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

As I said above, he also said NO prisoners are taken.  Yet Cullen takes prisoners.

And Gaider already addressed the alternative to death in the Right of Annulment: tranquility.

DG also said that no prisoners are taken.  We he talks about mages being made tranquil, he is talking about any who simply happen not to be killed.  Which is different than mages who are taken prisoner.

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

And we already know Cullen does, in fact, take prisoners.

So since he's not abiding by the rules as stated by DG when it comes to prisoners, is it certain he will abide by those rules regarding making them tranquil?

Since Cullen already stated mages can't be treated like people, are weapons, and doesn't seem to have a problem with the Right of Annulment when you address Ser Alrik's "Tranquility Solution," I don't see why you'd think Cullen would do otherwise. Also, mage survivors are only mentioned in the ending where Hawke sided with the mages.

And yet Cullen takes prisoners during the templar ending.  Which is against the rules of the RoA, as given to us by DG.  Which is also not in keeping with the quotes you mentioned.  Which implies Cullen has, perhaps, changed his mind.

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

It's being twisted since DG said that prisoners are not taken during a RoA.  Yet Cullen takes prisoners.  So clearly, either DG is wrong, or Cullen is making up his own rules for this event.

So DG is wrong when he says something you disagree with, but when he says something you do agree with, he's right?

TJPags wrote...

DG also said that no prisoners are taken.  We he talks about mages being made tranquil, he is talking about any who simply happen not to be killed.  Which is different than mages who are taken prisoner.

He explained what happens if mages were taken prisoner: tranquility.

TJPags wrote...

And yet Cullen takes prisoners during the templar ending.  Which is against the rules of the RoA, as given to us by DG.  Which is also not in keeping with the quotes you mentioned.  Which implies Cullen has, perhaps, changed his mind.

He spared three mages who will likely be made tranquil per what Gaider said on the issue of mages who aren't killed in the Right of Annulment, and there's nothing to indicate Cullen stops the Right of Annulment since, in both versions, Cullen only stops Meredith when she threatens Hawke's life, not because she invoked the Right of Annulment.

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

It's being twisted since DG said that prisoners are not taken during a RoA.  Yet Cullen takes prisoners.  So clearly, either DG is wrong, or Cullen is making up his own rules for this event.

So DG is wrong when he says something you disagree with, but when he says something you do agree with, he's right?

Funny, I give you 2 possibilities, and you jump on me saying DG is wrong.  Inaccurate - I'm not saying he is wrong.  I'm saying you are misinterpreting what he said, and that Cullen is making up his own rules.

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

DG also said that no prisoners are taken.  We he talks about mages being made tranquil, he is talking about any who simply happen not to be killed.  Which is different than mages who are taken prisoner.

He explained what happens if mages were taken prisoner: tranquility.

No, he did not.  He specifically said that there was a "take no prisoners" rule.  You don't have prisoners if you take no prisoners.  You have survivors.  Those are different.

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

And yet Cullen takes prisoners during the templar ending.  Which is against the rules of the RoA, as given to us by DG.  Which is also not in keeping with the quotes you mentioned.  Which implies Cullen has, perhaps, changed his mind.

He spared three mages who will likely be made tranquil per what Gaider said on the issue of mages who aren't killed in the Right of Annulment, and there's nothing to indicate Cullen stops the Right of Annulment since, in both versions, Cullen only stops Meredith when she threatens Hawke's life, not because she invoked the Right of Annulment.

Cullen stops the RoA under it's normal rules the minute he takes prisoners.  Because he is not supposed to do that.  He alters the rules of engagement for this RoA, and does so in direct contradiction of Meredith.

DG said mages are not taken prisoner, and any survivors would, theoretically - and it's theoretical since it's not supposed to happen - be made tranquil.

In DA2, Cullen takes prisoners, defying his superior to do so.  The rules, therefore, have changed.  And were changed by a man you tout as calling mages weapons, and not people.
 
DG's comment does not apply to this situation any longer.  In fact, he likely spcifically did not address the situation as it exists in DA2.  Any attempts to say it does - by someone supporting the Templars or by someone supporting the mages - is twisting it or misinterpreting it.

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

Funny, I give you 2 possibilities, and you jump on me saying DG is wrong.  Inaccurate - I'm not saying he is wrong.  I'm saying you are misinterpreting what he said, and that Cullen is making up his own rules.

Because David Gaider explained what would happen if mages were hypothetically spared instead of killed, and we know that the other Circles of Magi saw the Right of Annulment was a sign of what the templars were willing to do, so it tells me that Cullen didn't play hero to the mages in the end if it caused the Circles across the continent to rebel against the Chantry and the Order of Templars.
 

TJPags wrote...

No, he did not.  He specifically said that there was a "take no prisoners" rule.  You don't have prisoners if you take no prisoners.  You have survivors.  Those are different.

He also addressed tranquility was the alternative if mages were hypothetically spared instead of killed.

TJPags wrote...

Cullen stops the RoA under it's normal rules the minute he takes prisoners.  Because he is not supposed to do that.  He alters the rules of engagement for this RoA, and does so in direct contradiction of Meredith.

Except Gaider already addessed it's not impossible for this to happen.

TJPags wrote...

DG said mages are not taken prisoner, and any survivors would, theoretically - and it's theoretical since it's not supposed to happen - be made tranquil.

And Cullen has no issue with the Rite of Tranquility.

TJPags wrote...

In DA2, Cullen takes prisoners, defying his superior to do so.  The rules, therefore, have changed.  And were changed by a man you tout as calling mages weapons, and not people.

Given that he doesn't stop the Right of Annulment and templars are still killing mages of all ages for something Anders did, it doesn't say much that Cullen only intervenes when the Champion is threatened by Meredith. 

TJPags wrote...
 
DG's comment does not apply to this situation any longer.  In fact, he likely spcifically did not address the situation as it exists in DA2.  Any attempts to say it does - by someone supporting the Templars or by someone supporting the mages - is twisting it or misinterpreting it.

Gaider addressed a situation where mages weren't killed in the Right of Annulment.

[Benchmark]

Just stop please. It is really boring for you to try and misuse a post from a different discussion that is obviously not discussing the situation at hand. I don't come on these forums to be bored.

Gaider is discussing a theoretical event. His entire point is to state that no Knight Commander would initiate a RoA then try and require the Templars to take prisoners. Doing so would make the battles in the RoA many times more dangerous for the Templars and cause many times more casualties.

He is allowing that any mages that happen to be captured by pure chance, may be tranquilized. This is in obvious response to a debate wherein someone badly wants to argue for tranquilization over death.

He does not discuss Kirkwall's specific situation. He does not discuss a Knight Captain that resists his Knight Commander and questions the validity of the RoA. A Knight Captain that specifically states that it would be possible to save elements from the Circle. Quit using this post incorrectly.

Again, post does not say anything about mages spared by The Champion and taken into custody by Cullen against Meredith's orders. Post is based on a theoretical reason for using Tranquilization over Death.

In fact, despite your erroneous and untruthful attempts to claim such, Gaider does not even state that Tranquilizing the captured mages is a policy. He merely allows for the possibility that in that unlikely event "I imagine they
could theroretically be made Tranquil as opposed to executed outright".

Allowance for a possibility.
theoretical
not policy
not referencing the actions of Cullen
not referencing the decisions of The Champion

Quit misusing it.

[IanPolaris]

Benchmark,

Lob is not misusing DG's quote. He is applying a DG WoG ruling as it applies to mage prisoners during a declared RoA to Kirkwall. This is completely legit.

The DG WoG is clear. Mages are not permitted to be taken prisoner *as* *mages*. At the end of the day, if there are mage prisoners they are either executed or tranquiled. DG is very clear about that point and at NO TIME does Cullen revoke Meredith's RoA so WoG applies.

-Polaris

[Lewie]

AlexXIV wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

louise101 wrote...

The blame for the RoA's lies with demons does it not.

The problem is that we dont know what happend  or why they happend in previous RoA's . Where the circles infiltraded by demons or was it just a tool to suppress a rebellion.

Well we know the 'almost Annullment' in Ferelden. I don't think the Circle of Kirkwall was in the same state as the Circle of Ferelden when Gregoire called it. I mean a demon had the First Enchanter as hostage and some other mages. And the rest of the tower basically had abominations in every room.

The thing is arguing about killing innocents is all good and well but the codex tells us that one abomination killed templars and mages alike, escaped and killed 70 people, that may be men, women and children which in turn made the RoA come about. Only one. The need to contain them is obvious but i do wish they had a way to find out who is possessed and who isn't. At first i thought Anders had the solution, yet Bethany couldn't check Keran but she didn't have an extra passenger so Anders and whatever magic he had probably wouldn't work, let alone be accepted as a viable way.

[IanPolaris]

louise101 wrote...

The thing is arguing about killing innocents is all good and well but the codex tells us that one abomination killed templars and mages alike, escaped and killed 70 people, that may be men, women and children which in turn made the RoA come about. Only one. The need to contain them is obvious but i do wish they had a way to find out who is possessed and who isn't. At first i thought Anders had the solution, yet Bethany couldn't check Keran but she didn't have an extra passenger so Anders and whatever magic he had probably wouldn't work, let alone be accepted as a viable way.

This was 70 people all in the space of a year.  Honestly a psychopath with a knife could do at least as much damage in the same period of time.  More Chantry "viewing with alarm" which is historically the number one justification for oppression.

-Polaris

[Lewie]

IanPolaris wrote...

louise101 wrote...

The thing is arguing about killing innocents is all good and well but the codex tells us that one abomination killed templars and mages alike, escaped and killed 70 people, that may be men, women and children which in turn made the RoA come about. Only one. The need to contain them is obvious but i do wish they had a way to find out who is possessed and who isn't. At first i thought Anders had the solution, yet Bethany couldn't check Keran but she didn't have an extra passenger so Anders and whatever magic he had probably wouldn't work, let alone be accepted as a viable way.

This was 70 people all in the space of a year.  Honestly a psychopath with a knife could do at least as much damage in the same period of time.  More Chantry "viewing with alarm" which is historically the number one justification for oppression.

-Polaris

Not to mention that 70 people is what... luck? chance? it could have been many more.

[Lewie]

If a psychopath with a knife went out and slaughtered 70 people would you be screaming oppression? I think not. Everything would be done to capture and remove 'this threat'. Chantry or not, the truth is releasing blood mages is not worth the risk. This is not something they can control it will overcome them eventually and others pay the price.

Modifié par louise101, 21 avril 2011 - 09:36 .

[IanPolaris]

louise101 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

louise101 wrote...

The thing is arguing about killing innocents is all good and well but the codex tells us that one abomination killed templars and mages alike, escaped and killed 70 people, that may be men, women and children which in turn made the RoA come about. Only one. The need to contain them is obvious but i do wish they had a way to find out who is possessed and who isn't. At first i thought Anders had the solution, yet Bethany couldn't check Keran but she didn't have an extra passenger so Anders and whatever magic he had probably wouldn't work, let alone be accepted as a viable way.

This was 70 people all in the space of a year.  Honestly a psychopath with a knife could do at least as much damage in the same period of time.  More Chantry "viewing with alarm" which is historically the number one justification for oppression.

-Polaris

Not to mention that 70 people is what... luck? chance? it could have been many more.

Point.  Missing it.  The POINT is that Bioware has failed to show (as has DG) that the danger from abominations is in the end greater than say being struck by lightning or (far, far more likely given the lack of medicine because of a fear of blood magic) losing your life or limb to gangrene.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

louise101 wrote...


If a psychopath with a knife went out and slaughtered 70 people would you be screaming oppression? I think not.

If you wanted to lock away all people that had knifes because a psychopath went of a killing spree with a knife, yeah I would be screaming oppression.

-Polaris

[Lewie]

IanPolaris wrote...

louise101 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

louise101 wrote...

The thing is arguing about killing innocents is all good and well but the codex tells us that one abomination killed templars and mages alike, escaped and killed 70 people, that may be men, women and children which in turn made the RoA come about. Only one. The need to contain them is obvious but i do wish they had a way to find out who is possessed and who isn't. At first i thought Anders had the solution, yet Bethany couldn't check Keran but she didn't have an extra passenger so Anders and whatever magic he had probably wouldn't work, let alone be accepted as a viable way.

This was 70 people all in the space of a year.  Honestly a psychopath with a knife could do at least as much damage in the same period of time.  More Chantry "viewing with alarm" which is historically the number one justification for oppression.

-Polaris

Not to mention that 70 people is what... luck? chance? it could have been many more.

Point.  Missing it.  The POINT is that Bioware has failed to show (as has DG) that the danger from abominations is in the end greater than say being struck by lightning or (far, far more likely given the lack of medicine because of a fear of blood magic) losing your life or limb to gangrene.

-Polaris

That is completely off point, in the words of the Arishok: 'Do you want me to argue the wind' (lol). 

The game gave us enough information to make a decision, matter of fact is based also on what we saw in Ferelden and how it is when a circle is overrun. Orsino having blood magic gear didn't help his fellow mages he had already delved into it. From the bottom up and top down the circle was being ruined by demonolgy. That is obvious.

The question boils down to who hawke will side with and her own comment about keeping casualties to a minimum was spot on. 

What would you suggest then? Bioware realising codex's regarding statistical analysis on lightning deaths and medical deaths?. We have to decide with what we have.

Modifié par louise101, 21 avril 2011 - 09:48 .

[Lewie]

IanPolaris wrote...

louise101 wrote...


If a psychopath with a knife went out and slaughtered 70 people would you be screaming oppression? I think not.

If you wanted to lock away all people that had knifes because a psychopath went of a killing spree with a knife, yeah I would be screaming oppression.

-Polaris

This is something i don't want to get into, a psychopath escapes a mental institution, a blood mage escapes a circle. Contain the psychopath but lets allow the other residents to have knives in the name of freedom.

[IanPolaris]

louise101 wrote...

That is completely off point, in the words of the Arishok: 'Do you want me to argue the wind' (lol). 

The game gave us enough information to make a decision, matter of fact is based also on what we saw in Ferelden and how it is when a circle is overrun. Orsino having blood magic gear didn't help his fellow mages he had already delved into it. From the bottom up and top down the circle was being ruined by demonolgy. That is obvious.

Facts not in evidence.  Even if you want to think the worst of Orisino (and we had no evidence he was a bloodmagic until the very end), it does not ipso facto mean that all mages in the circle must die, or all are corrupted.  In fact if Bethany is in the circle, we know for certain that at last one is not.

Bioware goes to great lengths to avoid giving us real information as to just how common abominations are, how much damage was caused pre and post circle (and this info does exist because the Templars as guardians of mages pre-date the circle system), and for that matter the DA2 at least goes to great lengths to only give a skewed view of mages because we never see the law abiding ones in the gallows.

So far from giving enough information, what little reliable information we do have seems to strongly indicate that the chantry is using a fear of magic, spurred on by the chantry itself to control magic....and has for nearly a thousand years.

The question boils down to who hawke will side with and her own comment about keeping casualties to a minimum was spot on. 

Wrong.  The mages are locked down in the gallows and have been for weeks.  That means that Kirkwall isn't under threat and never has been.  It's sap to make the templar-Hawke feel better about him or herself, but ultimately it's a lie.

What would you suggest then? Bioware realising codex's regarding statistical analysis on lightning deaths and medical deaths?. We have to decide with what we have.

Actually good solid statistical information about pre- and post circle abomination rates (and casualties) would be a good start...but they'll never do it (for obvious reasons).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

louise101 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

louise101 wrote...


If a psychopath with a knife went out and slaughtered 70 people would you be screaming oppression? I think not.

If you wanted to lock away all people that had knifes because a psychopath went of a killing spree with a knife, yeah I would be screaming oppression.

-Polaris

This is something i don't want to get into, a psychopath escapes a mental institution, a blood mage escapes a circle. Contain the psychopath but lets allow the other residents to have knives in the name of freedom.

That's a really bad and dated example.  The old-style mental asylums have gone the way of the dodo and lobotomy.  Yes mental institutions still exist, but they exist for those patients who have PROVEN that no other option other than controlled care is viable...and that means they are locked up for what they've done rather than what they are.

That's the key difference.

-Polaris

[ddv.rsa]

IanPolaris wrote...

Wrong.  The mages are locked down in the gallows and have been for weeks.  That means that Kirkwall isn't under threat and never has been.  It's sap to make the templar-Hawke feel better about him or herself, but ultimately it's a lie

-Polaris

You're entitled to your opinion but don't mistake it for fact. If the mages were so securely detained in the gallows why are there entire packs of them running around Kirkwall in the final battle? All apostates?

[Lewie]

IanPolaris wrote...

louise101 wrote...

That is completely off point, in the words of the Arishok: 'Do you want me to argue the wind' (lol). 

The game gave us enough information to make a decision, matter of fact is based also on what we saw in Ferelden and how it is when a circle is overrun. Orsino having blood magic gear didn't help his fellow mages he had already delved into it. From the bottom up and top down the circle was being ruined by demonolgy. That is obvious.

Facts not in evidence.  Even if you want to think the worst of Orisino (and we had no evidence he was a bloodmagic until the very end), it does not ipso facto mean that all mages in the circle must die, or all are corrupted.  In fact if Bethany is in the circle, we know for certain that at last one is not.

Bioware goes to great lengths to avoid giving us real information as to just how common abominations are, how much damage was caused pre and post circle (and this info does exist because the Templars as guardians of mages pre-date the circle system), and for that matter the DA2 at least goes to great lengths to only give a skewed view of mages because we never see the law abiding ones in the gallows.

So far from giving enough information, what little reliable information we do have seems to strongly indicate that the chantry is using a fear of magic, spurred on by the chantry itself to control magic....and has for nearly a thousand years.

The question boils down to who hawke will side with and her own comment about keeping casualties to a minimum was spot on. 

Wrong.  The mages are locked down in the gallows and have been for weeks.  That means that Kirkwall isn't under threat and never has been.  It's sap to make the templar-Hawke feel better about him or herself, but ultimately it's a lie.

What would you suggest then? Bioware realising codex's regarding statistical analysis on lightning deaths and medical deaths?. We have to decide with what we have.

Actually good solid statistical information about pre- and post circle abomination rates (and casualties) would be a good start...but they'll never do it (for obvious reasons).

-Polaris

Kirkwall was always under threat as stated before by someone the place was a powder keg. If hawke was given the decision to allow the RoA that may be a whole different story, but the fact is Meredith had that decision, thanks to anders.

[IanPolaris]

ddv.rsa wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Wrong.  The mages are locked down in the gallows and have been for weeks.  That means that Kirkwall isn't under threat and never has been.  It's sap to make the templar-Hawke feel better about him or herself, but ultimately it's a lie

-Polaris

You're entitled to your opinion but don't mistake it for fact. If the mages were so securely detained in the gallows why are there entire packs of them running around Kirkwall in the final battle? All apostates?

A lot of them probably are apostates.  Kirkwall seems to have a lot of apostates for the Templars it has....of course that may be because Templars can't seem to recognize magic even when cast under their noses (if you are going to use the game-play argument then so will I!)

The fact is that perhaps a couple dozen mages are outside the circle absolute tops when the RoA is declared and most would have been mages accompanying Orsino.

The FACT IS the Gallows is shut down and has been for weeks and as such Kirkwall is NOT in danger.  Public safety wouldn't be a reason to justify genocide regardless and it certainly isn't here. 

-Polaris

[Lewie]

ddv.rsa wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Wrong.  The mages are locked down in the gallows and have been for weeks.  That means that Kirkwall isn't under threat and never has been.  It's sap to make the templar-Hawke feel better about him or herself, but ultimately it's a lie

-Polaris

You're entitled to your opinion but don't mistake it for fact. If the mages were so securely detained in the gallows why are there entire packs of them running around Kirkwall in the final battle? All apostates?

I think the final battle was a case of them using blood magic as a last resort, they were going to be executed. Even if you side with them it makes no difference though.

[IanPolaris]

louise101 wrote...

Kirkwall was always under threat as stated before by someone the place was a powder keg. If hawke was given the decision to allow the RoA that may be a whole different story, but the fact is Meredith had that decision, thanks to anders.

The only one that really thought Kirkwall was under immediate and dire threat (not just a hazard that had to be dealt with) is Meredith and she was a fruit-loop.  Even her own Knight Commander didn't feel that the level of threat rose to the level of a Right of Annulment.  It is also besides the point.  The stated justification for the Right of Annulment is the Destruction of the Chantry by magic which Orisino rightly complains the circle had zip to do with.

Thus you either side with a genocidal maniac and commit genocide yourself (and the Right of Annulment IS genocide by the proper definition of the term) or you protect a group of people from genocide knowing that in protecting innocents, you are probably protecting a few that really are genuiningly guilty.

It's not a hard choice and it's not a grey choice at all.  If I have to protect 99 guilty people to protect one innocent person, then I will do so. 

-Polaris

[ddv.rsa]

IanPolaris wrote...

The fact is that perhaps a couple dozen mages are outside the circle absolute tops when the RoA is declared and most would have been mages accompanying Orsino.

The FACT IS the Gallows is shut down and has been for weeks and as such Kirkwall is NOT in danger.  Public safety wouldn't be a reason to justify genocide regardless and it certainly isn't here. 

-Polaris

I'm not going to debate whether or not the RoA was justified, but I will say that a couple dozen mages is plenty dangerous. Certainly more than enough to sack any city. Remember that only seven mages were attached to the army at Ostagar. That was deemed a sufficent response to the darkspawn horde - these guys are walking artillery pieces.