945 réponses à ce sujet

[Icy Magebane]

@Plaintiff: I understand that you value complete mage freedom. All I am saying is that the consequences to such action may have a huge negative impact on Thedas. IMO, a system of Circles with strict oversight to both mage AND Templar would be ideal. I think we just disagree on the idea of whether individual freedom is more important than the welfare of society. I'm not even sure what to say beyond that. I just think that if the system had some basic reforms, it would work quite well... I don't see the wisdom in destroying it utterly.

Also, keep in mind that the Templars who tried to recapture Anders were violating Chantry law and the King (or Queen)'s direct orders. Grey Wardens are not beholden to the Circle. You can't blame the system for what rogue elements do.

[LobselVith8]

Benchmark wrote...

Really? Thats what you think? So, you are saying that the game is open to interpretation and the in game events are meant to be seen as messages from the different writers as to what they want you to understand?

Actually, when I addressed different writers, I recalled how Gaider said the reference about apostates in the Magi Origin was wrong as well as the inaccurate mention about Maric's death in Something Wicked. Adressing that the codex entries are factually inaccurate also attested to this when he said it's not correct.

Benchmark wrote...

So throwing in dozens of mages that use blood magic and demonology, many of them FROM THE CIRCLE would mean that they want you to interpret it as a circle that is corrupted.

Hawke never encounters the many mages and apprentices of the Gallows, but you want to condemn all of the mages on the basis of a few of them.

Benchmark wrote...

So letting you hear hearsay about abuses in the circle would allow you to take the interpretation that the Templars are making the mages become corrupted?

There's nothing in the story to substantiate that the Circle of Kirkwall is corrupt. You're welcome to your opinions, of course.

Benchmark wrote...

Guess what! You can interpret it anyway that you wish and be right, because the writers intended for you to be able to do that!!!!! Congratulations on wasting 20 pages of posts because you only want to allow one interpretation and refuse to allow a different one, despite just admitting to the game world being a result of multiple interpretations!

No, David Gaider has addressed certain things are factual, and others are wrong. It's not intended for us to simply interpret what we want when WoG has stipulated that certain things are true, and others are false.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 22 avril 2011 - 05:18 .

[moilami]

AlexXIV wrote...

Benchmark wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

moilami wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

I think people are getting a little dramatic... at no point is there a "final solution" to the mage problem, other than the rejected proposal by Ser Alrik. Whether people like or dislike the idea of Circles, the simple fact is that they are used to contain and monitor mages to avoid a situation where demonic abominations freely roam the world. There is no other purpose behind them. There were abusive Templars in the Kirkwall Circle, that is true. But this is an extreme case that in no way reflects the general treatment of mages in Thedas. Perhaps Ferelden is an extreme example of a more relaxed Circle? I don't know... we've only seen 2 Circles so far. But this idea that Circles are akin to death camps is absurd.

Tell then from history what is better comparison for this particular genocide.

There is no historical context because there has never been a race as 'superior' (in raw power) as mages to all others.

Closest I could see would be jews in medivial times but they didn't really have magic or even bloodmagic.

There is reason in having Mage Circles. My problem is not that the Circles exist, but how they are run. Namely in a way that eventually made the mages to rise up and throw all of Thedas into a war. Which is the final judgement on a system that failed.

Jews in medieval Europe wouldn't be a good parallel because they had no abilities that posed a significant threat to the nation they were part of.

Maybe Arabs under the Great Khan? The Golden Horde was forced to turn back several times because Arabic cities were rebuilding armies after he had conquered them but failed to kill their leaders. When he returned the final time to retake a cityt that had revolted, he simply killed all of the fighting age men so they couldn't build any more armies...

Nope, that one isn't good either. Except that we could all argue in circles about his motivations and whether it was genocide.

I know it is not a good example but there is no good example. Jews however were a thorn in the eye of the christians since they were obviously 'heretics' and on the other side restricted from haveing titles or land, etc. Also they could only work as merchants or money loaner. Which made them rich and even more hated. They were defenitely considered a threat by the Church but nowhere as much as a mage by the Chantry. Since Jews didn't have magic. There is no viable historical comparison.

It is irrelevant that Jews did not have magic because people in DA have abilities like magic. People just can't see it because they are not used to absract level thinking. So warriors "roflstump the sword on the ground" or rouges "all penetrating arrows" are not seen as magic by typical peeps.

So if you want to evaluate how dangerous mages are you make duels (impossible at the moment) or solo.

[Paraxial]

moilami wrote...

Why would a mage let a demon posses him anymore than a madman shooting randomly at people on the street?

This doesn't make any sense. Are you implying that murderers are somehow possessed, or are you trying to say that mages who consort with demons are as rare as people who go on killing sprees. 

Or did you just write a poorly structured statement for the hell of it.

Modifié par Bible Doctor, 22 avril 2011 - 05:24 .

[Icy Magebane]

moilami wrote...
Why would a mage let a demon posses him anymore than a madman shooting randomly at people on the street?

Overconfidence? Need I remind you of the countless abominations in Kirkwall? People like Thrask's daughter making a demonic pact when her back was against the wall? If that's what it takes to stay alive, maybe she felt it was worth it. But if she'd survived the encounter with Hawke, she'd be the slave of a demon...

Edit:  In the Circle Tower of Ferelden, mages were made into abominations against their will.  So there doesn't even need to be a willing agreement between the person and a demon.  There are many ways for abominations to be created... it's not neccessarily the result of a mage actively seeking out a demon for aid.

Modifié par Icy Magebane, 22 avril 2011 - 05:24 .

[LobselVith8]

Benchmark wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I am just suprised because since she evokes it one should think that the question arises but is never tackled in the game or predecessors.

It is a plot device. Just like the insanity sword and making sure Meredith won't be willing to compromise forcing Hawke to make a decision at a really bad pivot point. Since it is a bad plot device, they didn't spend a lot of time on defending it.

The only real choice the writers want you to make is A. Side with mages that want freedom but represent a substantial risk to the population. B. Side with the Templars who represent oppression but work to create security for the population.

It is a very poorly constructed debate on Liberty vs Security. And it is designed to pull at our "Live Free or Die" heartstrings.

This isn't correct. You're not siding with mages who want freedom, you're siding with mages who are going to be killed because Meredith has condemned the Circle mages and apprentices to execution for Anders' killing of Grand Cleric Elthina.

[Benchmark]

Plaintiff wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

I think people are getting a little dramatic... at no point is there a "final solution" to the mage problem, other than the rejected proposal by Ser Alrik. Whether people like or dislike the idea of Circles, the simple fact is that they are used to contain and monitor mages to avoid a situation where demonic abominations freely roam the world. There is no other purpose behind them. There were abusive Templars in the Kirkwall Circle, that is true. But this is an extreme case that in no way reflects the general treatment of mages in Thedas. Perhaps Ferelden is an extreme example of a more relaxed Circle? I don't know... we've only seen 2 Circles so far. But this idea that Circles are akin to death camps is absurd.

I wouldn't call them death camps. They're prisons. The mages may be generally well-treated, (the ones that obey the rules, anyway), but it's a gilded cage at best and I hardly think Ferelden's Circle is a shining example of fair treatment. Mages require special permission to leave the tower and it certainly wouldn't be granted for frivolous reasons like "visiting the family I haven't seen since I was twelve", if you play the Mage Origin, Greagoir is very much opposed to mages leaving the Circle, even to fight the darkspawn at Ostagar. I can only assume he wants Ferelden to become a black and twisted Blightland where no life can grow.

Plenty of things occur within the Ferelden Circle that I would consider "abuse" which are actually completely legal as the situation stands currently. Wynne's child being taken from her at birth is a shining example of standard Circle law. Another would be the templars in Awakening who set a trap for Anders after I've taken him into the Wardens. Discouraging relationships, the Harrowing, teaching them that they are cursed and unfit to join regular society... I could go on. Life in the Ferelden Circle is hardly ideal, if it were, Uldred would never have been able to amass any followers to enact his takeover in the first place and Anders wouldn't try so hard to escape.

As Anders say to Sebastian when prompted, his discontent with the Circle has nothing to do with demons, nor was he abused by templars. It stems from being deprived of the basic freedoms that regular people take for granted.

Sadly, with power comes responsibility, and sometimes responsibility limits personal freedoms. You may not like the Circle system in general, and you may not personally want to exist in a system like that, but that does not negate it's necessity in Thedas. It is sad that the mages never got to choose to accept the power, or the responsibility, or the limits on personal freedoms. As stated by Fenris, "Noone gets to choose their fate".

If you want to change the circle sytem, there was a great thread Titled: Name me a better option to the Circle. There is plenty of room for improvement and plenty of people were making good suggestions. Let all mages run free, is not one of them.

[In Exile]

louise101 wrote...

Maybe it just boils to what you base your decision on. I base it on what the codex says, plain and simple. Its the law set for that world, that time, those circumstances. I don't get why people can't understand that.

If our modern day law is the important thing to some then they shouldn't play any games that involve killing of any sort. Why can't people differentiate the two?

Law =! morality. I reccomend H.L.A. Hart.

[moilami]

Bible Doctor wrote...

moilami wrote...

Why would a mage let a demon posses him anymore than a madman shooting randomly at people on the street?

This doesn't make any sense. Are you implying that murders are somehow possessed, or are you trying to say that mages who consort with demons are as rare as people who go on killing sprees. 

Or did you just write a poorly structured statement for the hell of it.

Now that you ask, I think mass murderers are mad.

I however asked in the original question why would a mage want to become comparable to madman and worse when he have a choise?

[Benchmark]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Benchmark wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I am just suprised because since she evokes it one should think that the question arises but is never tackled in the game or predecessors.

It is a plot device. Just like the insanity sword and making sure Meredith won't be willing to compromise forcing Hawke to make a decision at a really bad pivot point. Since it is a bad plot device, they didn't spend a lot of time on defending it.

The only real choice the writers want you to make is A. Side with mages that want freedom but represent a substantial risk to the population. B. Side with the Templars who represent oppression but work to create security for the population.

It is a very poorly constructed debate on Liberty vs Security. And it is designed to pull at our "Live Free or Die" heartstrings.

This isn't correct. You're not siding with mages who want freedom, you're siding with mages who are going to be killed because Meredith has condemned the Circle mages and apprentices to execution for Anders' killing of Grand Cleric Elthina.

The next time you mention Ander's when noone else has even spoken about him you are going to turn some normal mage in game into a blood mage. Oh look what you did, now I have to clean this warehouse of shades...

Modifié par Benchmark, 22 avril 2011 - 05:31 .

[moilami]

Icy Magebane wrote...

moilami wrote...
Why would a mage let a demon posses him anymore than a madman shooting randomly at people on the street?

Overconfidence? Need I remind you of the countless abominations in Kirkwall? People like Thrask's daughter making a demonic pact when her back was against the wall? If that's what it takes to stay alive, maybe she felt it was worth it. But if she'd survived the encounter with Hawke, she'd be the slave of a demon...

Edit:  In the Circle Tower of Ferelden, mages were made into abominations against their will.  So there doesn't even need to be a willing agreement between the person and a demon.  There are many ways for abominations to be created... it's not neccessarily the result of a mage actively seeking out a demon for aid.

Circle tower example showed how hard it is to make a mage possessed by a demon against his will. That clearly shows a demon possessing a mage is not a triviality. 

[LobselVith8]

Benchmark wrote...

I wasn't arguing the legality of the RoA, so your response is misplaced.

I was actually just making sure Lob recognized he is recognizing interpretation as a valid argument for the gameworld, when he hasn't done so for 20 pages.

Why are you addressing interpretation? I was making a statement that David Gaider, the head writer of Dragon Age, has stated certain things are factually inaccurate.

[Benchmark]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Benchmark wrote...

I wasn't arguing the legality of the RoA, so your response is misplaced.

I was actually just making sure Lob recognized he is recognizing interpretation as a valid argument for the gameworld, when he hasn't done so for 20 pages.

Why are you addressing interpretation? I was making a statement that David Gaider, the head writer of Dragon Age, has stated certain things are factually inaccurate.

Because you mentioned multiple writers all making different points in the game. I forgot that Hawke is allowed one celebrity shout out to call David Gaider and verify if what he sees in front of him is real.

[LobselVith8]

louise101 wrote...
The reason for the rite is clear, i simply base a decision on that alone its not just anders, there are blood mages turning into abominations, infecting templars is pretty serious, so simply put how is it wrong to invoke the rite when we fight how many in kirkwall?

You're talking about mages outside of the Gallows and labelling all the mages inside the Gallows as being no different than the criminal element we come across.

louise101 wrote...
Its also obvious Orsino was busy behind closed doors. When you get into the gallows and the rooms are full of abominations, if you side with the mages, and you tell Orsino this... its only a guess as to whether they just 'poofed' at the last minute, or were practicising blood magic for a while.

It doesn't take blood magic to be an abomination, the few we encounter don't constitute all of the mages, and Varric states that "many survived" only if Hawke supports the mages.

louise101 wrote...
To me it couldn't be more clear or defined it was made because one went riot. Thats the law whether i think its right or not. I don't add to it, or take fact away or twist it to what i THINK it should be. Weighing up the facts we are given and realising what the rite means, to me isn't difficult. It simply is what it is.

The problem is it's an issue of speculation to determine what the mages in the Gallows are like.

[nos_astra]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Why are you addressing interpretation? I was making a statement that David Gaider, the head writer of Dragon Age, has stated certain things are factually inaccurate.

Yes, because the codex is a collection of written texts, notes and opinions rather than an unbiased source of wisdom.

Modifié par klarabella, 22 avril 2011 - 05:45 .

[Plaintiff]

Icy Magebane wrote...

@Plaintiff: I understand that you value complete mage freedom. All I am saying is that the consequences to such action may have a huge negative impact on Thedas. IMO, a system of Circles with strict oversight to both mage AND Templar would be ideal. I think we just disagree on the idea of whether individual freedom is more important than the welfare of society. I'm not even sure what to say beyond that. I just think that if the system had some basic reforms, it would work quite well... I don't see the wisdom in destroying it utterly.

Also, keep in mind that the Templars who tried to recapture Anders were violating Chantry law and the King (or Queen)'s direct orders. Grey Wardens are not beholden to the Circle. You can't blame the system for what rogue elements do.

Can't that argument be turned around to work in favour of mages? In DA2 We see a lot of abusive templars and we see a lot of renegade bloodmages, due to the demands of story and gameplay. But we are also told that these characters do not represent the majority, that the situation in Kirkwall is unusual, etc, etc. Possession is not as common as we are led to believe by Hawke's personal experience.

I don't wish to see the Circle "destroyed" as such, although the reforms I would suggest in my ideal Thedas would alter it substantially from what it is now. The problem lies in its connection to the Chantry. In theory, the Circle is a haven for mages, a place where they can grow into their powers and are educated and protected. But it doesn't work that way in practice. The Chantry monitors the Circle and therein the problem lies, the Chantry hates and fears magic and that has been ingrained in the people of Thedas to the point where mages are no longer considered human.

In-game, I side with the mages because, for lack of a peaceful solution, I really feel it is the right thing. Anders is correct when he says that there is no compromise. Any such compromise in this situation is purely conceptual, because the true power in Thedas, the Chantry, would never accept it, and it doesn't have to because it holds all the cards already. In order to reach a new compromise that would be suitable to all, a radical change has to be forced, and with no other avenues available, that can only be done through conflict.

[LobselVith8]

Benchmark wrote...

The next time you mention Ander's when noone else has even spoken about him you are going to turn some normal mage in game into a blood mage. Oh look what you did, now I have to clean this warehouse of shades...

I mentioned him because he's the reason behind the RoA, as Meredith admits. It's because of the attack against the Kirkwall Chantry that Meredith orders, "As Knight-Commander of Kirkwall, I hereby invoke the Right of Annulment. Every mage is to be executed, immediately!" She counters Orsino's claim by telling the Champion, "And I demand that you stand with us! Even you must see that this outrage cannot be tolerated!" Meredith makes it clear that the attack on the Chantry is the reason behind the Right of Annulment.

"It doesn't matter," Meredith admits in the face of Anders' confession. "Even if I wished to, I could not stay my hand. The people will demand blood." The Knight-Commander is willing to kill the Circle of Magi because of what Anders did. It has nothing to do with suspected blood mages in the Circle of Kirkwall.

[LobselVith8]

klarabella wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Why are you addressing interpretation? I was making a statement that David Gaider, the head writer of Dragon Age, has stated certain things are factually inaccurate.

Yes, because the codex is a collection of written texts, notes and opinions rather than an unbiased source of wisdom.

You're missing the point. No one is contesting that the codex entries are written from in-game persective and are biased. I was addressing that Gaider has stated some mistakes were made, i.e. the reference to apostates in the Magi Origin and the incorrect mention of how Maric died in Something Wicked. I further added that he stated that the references of templars controlling mages, as well as mages being in servitude to the Chantry and mages being in service of the Chantry in the codex entries are incorrect with his statement about how they are not factually accurate, as opposed to simply being an issue of opinion.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 22 avril 2011 - 05:53 .

[In Exile]

Icy Magebane wrote...

@Plaintiff: I understand that you value complete mage freedom. All I am saying is that the consequences to such action may have a huge negative impact on Thedas. IMO, a system of Circles with strict oversight to both mage AND Templar would be ideal.

There are two issues here. One is how to protect non-mages from mages. The other is the treatment of mages. We can acknowledge the immorality of one without damning the neccesity of the other.

I think we just disagree on the idea of whether individual freedom is more important than the welfare of society. I'm not even sure what to say beyond that. I just think that if the system had some basic reforms, it would work quite well... I don't see the wisdom in destroying it utterly.

The Circle is more than just a restriction on individual freedom. That bears saying.

One thing not mentioned in the freedom versus liberty debate is the degree to which non-mages should give up some freedoms for the sake of safety (e.g. lyrium treatments or whatever to become resistant to mana).

If templars disseminated their anti-magic training, that would be one way to counter-balance mages.

[Icy Magebane]

Plaintiff wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

@Plaintiff: I understand that you value complete mage freedom. All I am saying is that the consequences to such action may have a huge negative impact on Thedas. IMO, a system of Circles with strict oversight to both mage AND Templar would be ideal. I think we just disagree on the idea of whether individual freedom is more important than the welfare of society. I'm not even sure what to say beyond that. I just think that if the system had some basic reforms, it would work quite well... I don't see the wisdom in destroying it utterly.

Also, keep in mind that the Templars who tried to recapture Anders were violating Chantry law and the King (or Queen)'s direct orders. Grey Wardens are not beholden to the Circle. You can't blame the system for what rogue elements do.

Can't that argument be turned around to work in favour of mages? In DA2 We see a lot of abusive templars and we see a lot of renegade bloodmages, due to the demands of story and gameplay. But we are also told that these characters do not represent the majority, that the situation in Kirkwall is unusual, etc, etc. Possession is not as common as we are led to believe by Hawke's personal experience.

I don't wish to see the Circle "destroyed" as such, although the reforms I would suggest in my ideal Thedas would alter it substantially from what it is now. The problem lies in its connection to the Chantry. In theory, the Circle is a haven for mages, a place where they can grow into their powers and are educated and protected. But it doesn't work that way in practice. The Chantry monitors the Circle and therein the problem lies, the Chantry hates and fears magic and that has been ingrained in the people of Thedas to the point where mages are no longer considered human.

In-game, I side with the mages because, for lack of a peaceful solution, I really feel it is the right thing. Anders is correct when he says that there is no compromise. Any such compromise in this situation is purely conceptual, because the true power in Thedas, the Chantry, would never accept it, and it doesn't have to because it holds all the cards already. In order to reach a new compromise that would be suitable to all, a radical change has to be forced, and with no other avenues available, that can only be done through conflict.

Hm... I'm willing to accept that.  The Chantry is indeed a problem due to its inherent corruption and its need to dominate the population.  Maybe there could be a system where Circles still exist, but are run by a more impartial body...  one that doesn't also have jurisdiction to declare Exhalted Marches and even interfere with the rule of the governments of sovereign nations.  I think DA2 needed more options for the ending than "freedom" or "continued oppression."  It's too polarizing, and there are obviously better ways to do things that are less extreme than an all or nothing secenario.

In Exile wrote...

The Circle is more than just a restriction on individual freedom. That bears saying.

One thing not mentioned in the freedom versus liberty debate is the degree to which non-mages should give up some freedoms for the sake of safety (e.g. lyrium treatments or whatever to become resistant to mana).

If templars disseminated their anti-magic training, that would be one way to counter-balance mages.

I think this would be a good first step in reforming the overall system. If more than just the Templars had access to these ablities, there would be far less need to worry about abominations in the first place.  Normal town guards with this training would be adequate.  Or maybe just special units within the town guard, as opposed to every single one of them (since lyrium has some nasty side effects... it wouldn't be right or even useful to make everyone drink it).

Modifié par Icy Magebane, 22 avril 2011 - 06:00 .

[Benchmark]

LobselVith8 wrote...

klarabella wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Why are you addressing interpretation? I was making a statement that David Gaider, the head writer of Dragon Age, has stated certain things are factually inaccurate.

Yes, because the codex is a collection of written texts, notes and opinions rather than an unbiased source of wisdom.

You're missing the point entirely. I was addressing that Gaider has stated some mistakes were made, i.e. the reference to apostates in the Magi Origin and the incorrect mention of how Maric died in Something Wicked. I further added that he stated that the references of the codex entries are incorrect with his statement about how they are not factually accurate.

Seriously? You get to pick which codex entries are factual based on whether or not they agree with your position? How many are errors? Do you have a list? Are they patching the game so Hawke can experience this "new reality"?

Or are you just using a quote by David Gaider to try and make your case dishonestly again? A quote he made after being caught by a plot hole and had to tap dance around a fantasy that doesn't exist for the benefit of rigid DA cultists?

Oh right, the second one.

[Plaintiff]

Benchmark wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

I think people are getting a little dramatic... at no point is there a "final solution" to the mage problem, other than the rejected proposal by Ser Alrik. Whether people like or dislike the idea of Circles, the simple fact is that they are used to contain and monitor mages to avoid a situation where demonic abominations freely roam the world. There is no other purpose behind them. There were abusive Templars in the Kirkwall Circle, that is true. But this is an extreme case that in no way reflects the general treatment of mages in Thedas. Perhaps Ferelden is an extreme example of a more relaxed Circle? I don't know... we've only seen 2 Circles so far. But this idea that Circles are akin to death camps is absurd.

I wouldn't call them death camps. They're prisons. The mages may be generally well-treated, (the ones that obey the rules, anyway), but it's a gilded cage at best and I hardly think Ferelden's Circle is a shining example of fair treatment. Mages require special permission to leave the tower and it certainly wouldn't be granted for frivolous reasons like "visiting the family I haven't seen since I was twelve", if you play the Mage Origin, Greagoir is very much opposed to mages leaving the Circle, even to fight the darkspawn at Ostagar. I can only assume he wants Ferelden to become a black and twisted Blightland where no life can grow.

Plenty of things occur within the Ferelden Circle that I would consider "abuse" which are actually completely legal as the situation stands currently. Wynne's child being taken from her at birth is a shining example of standard Circle law. Another would be the templars in Awakening who set a trap for Anders after I've taken him into the Wardens. Discouraging relationships, the Harrowing, teaching them that they are cursed and unfit to join regular society... I could go on. Life in the Ferelden Circle is hardly ideal, if it were, Uldred would never have been able to amass any followers to enact his takeover in the first place and Anders wouldn't try so hard to escape.

As Anders say to Sebastian when prompted, his discontent with the Circle has nothing to do with demons, nor was he abused by templars. It stems from being deprived of the basic freedoms that regular people take for granted.

Sadly, with power comes responsibility, and sometimes responsibility limits personal freedoms. You may not like the Circle system in general, and you may not personally want to exist in a system like that, but that does not negate it's necessity in Thedas. It is sad that the mages never got to choose to accept the power, or the responsibility, or the limits on personal freedoms. As stated by Fenris, "Noone gets to choose their fate".

If you want to change the circle sytem, there was a great thread Titled: Name me a better option to the Circle. There is plenty of room for improvement and plenty of people were making good suggestions. Let all mages run free, is not one of them.

But the mages aren't given responsibility. Responsibility would be allowing them to govern themselves, among other things. It is told explicitly to us that the mages that act out are a minority. Not to mention there seems to be a lot of misinformation about them floating around Thedas. Cullen states that a single mage can set a city aflame in a fit of pique, but it took Anders hours at least (could be days or weeks, I'm not sure how time is measured in DA2) to blow up even one building. I think letting them "run free" (that is, allowing them to integrate in society and act independantly of the Circle) is quite plauisble. Or it would be, except that templars apparently suck so hard at their jobs that when blood magic and abominations do pop up, they call in random civilians to take care of it.

[LobselVith8]

Benchmark wrote...

Seriously? You get to pick which codex entries are factual based on whether or not they agree with your position? How many are errors? Do you have a list? Are they patching the game so Hawke can experience this "new reality"?

Learn to control yourself. I'm addressing factually inaccurate statements made in the Magi Origin and Something Wicked, as well as Gaider addressing something that is factually inaccurate - mages being in servitude to the Chantry.

Benchmark wrote...

Or are you just using a quote by David Gaider to try and make your case dishonestly again? A quote he made after being caught by a plot hole and had to tap dance around a fantasy that doesn't exist for the benefit of rigid DA cultists?

I was addressing that the factually inaccurate mentions in the Magi Origin and Something Wicked that were made, and all I addressed was that because the game is written by a number of writers mistakes can happen.

Benchmark wrote...

Oh right, the second one.

You seem to be more interested in being condescending than actually reading what I've written.

[IanPolaris]

In Exile wrote...

If templars disseminated their anti-magic training, that would be one way to counter-balance mages.

Given (per Alistair) that at least some anti-mage Templar techniques can be taught without lyrium addiction, and the only real entry requirement for Templar Training is training as a Warrior, if the Chantry were really interested in protecting the people from magic and mages from ordinary people, they would have offered (donated) this training to warriors across Thedas for a thousand years.....for cost (or perhaps even donated for free).

They don't.  Instead Templar training is a very closely guarded secret and (apparently) a warrior can (or is supposed to without Hawke plot armor) get into some real trouble with the Chantry for showing Templar training outside the order.

Conclusion:  The Chantry actually doesn't care one whit about the supposed dangers of magic or the protection of mages.  They simply (at least the highest levels starting with the Divine) simply want a monopoly on magic for their own power....and they are willing to lie or at least dissemble to the rubes of Thedas and overstate the dangers of magic to keep this monopoly.

-Polaris

[In Exile]

Icy Magebane wrote...
I think this would be a good first step in reforming the overall system. If more than just the Templars had access to these ablities, there would be far less need to worry about abominations in the first place.  Normal town guards with this training would be adequate.  Or maybe just special units within the town guard, as opposed to every single one of them (since lyrium has some nasty side effects... it wouldn't be right or even useful to make everyone drink it).

No, abominations would still be hardcore. That's a gameplay/story segregation issue. The abominations are supposed to be much stronger than the fodder we kill.

That being said, town-guard templars would at least reduce the ability and fear of blood mages.