317 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

ipgd wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

ipgd wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Just so.  We know to take what Anders says with a chunk of salt the size of Texas when it comes to mages.  Why can't we admit we should do the same with Fenris when it comes to mages, magic, and Tevinter in general?

-Polaris

When did anyone say Fenris was anything approaching a reliable/impartial source?

See DG quote from prior page.  Enough said.

-Polaris

All what he said indicates is that Fenris feels a certain way about the issue based on his personal experiences and that he represents an opinion in the mage/templar conflict. Gaider is the only one who knows how much of what he says is accurate and how much of it is hyperbolic, but since it's pretty obviously written to accommodate doubt and ambiguity, he's not going to tell us.

This is what DG says:

Fenris's role in the story is pretty clear, isn't it? He's the only voice in the group that is clearly critical of the mages, and who speaks from the voice of experience. I think some of his dialogues are a must-read for those people who like to go on about how mages have it so much better in Tevinter, or how mages ruling themselves would clearly have much better results than the Chantry.

That doesn't sound like he expects us to view Fenris with much doubt and ambiguitity to me.

-Polaris

[ipgd]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

ipgd wrote...
Gaider is the only one who knows how much of what he says is accurate and how much of it is hyperbolic, but since it's pretty obviously written to accommodate doubt and ambiguity, he's not going to tell us.

What if we bother him as much and as often as the "OMG ALISTAIR GETTING MAD AT THE LANDSMEET IS OOC" people?

I'm pretty sure "FENRIS WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE INTERESTING IF HE WERE MORE OF A **** THAN HE ALREADY IS" is a little less irritating than "I KNOW YOUR OWN CHARACTERS BETTER THAN YOU DO AND I'M REALLY MAD ABOUT IT". I hope. Oh god.

IanPolaris wrote...

This is what DG says:

Fenris's role in the story is pretty clear, isn't it? He's the only voice in the group that is clearly critical of the mages, and who speaks from the voice of experience. I think some of his dialogues are a must-read for those people who like to go on about how mages have it so much better in Tevinter, or how mages ruling themselves would clearly have much better results than the Chantry.

That doesn't sound like he expects us to view Fenris with much doubt and ambiguitity to me.

-Polaris

I'm pretty sure you're reading too much into things due to the fact you've constructed Gaider as some sort of bizarre anti-mage boogeyman. He's a writer, his personal investment is in the construction of a compelling narrative (which in this case lies in the issue being difficult and morally ambiguous, hence why he "advocates" for the templars when you do that thing you do when you reduce everything to the most base, black and white literal interpretations possible and discard half the of the worldbuilding work that went into making the issue an actual issue and not some hilarious Disney villain act of subjugation).

Just calm down, Ian. I'm sure you'll be getting your letter from Hogwarts any day now.

Modifié par ipgd, 14 mai 2011 - 05:35 .

[IanPolaris]

ipgd wrote...
I'm pretty sure you're reading too much into things due to the fact you've constructed Gaider as some sort of bizarre anti-mage boogeyman. He's a writer, his personal investment is in the construction of a compelling narrative (which in this case lies in the issue being difficult and morally ambiguous, hence why he "advocates" for the templars when you do that thing you do when you reduce everything to the most base, black and white literal interpretations possible and discard half the of the worldbuilding work that went into making the issue an actual issue and not some hilarious Disney villain act of subjugation).

Just calm down, Ian. I'm sure you'll be getting your letter from Hogwarts any day now.

Personal swipes and innuendo aside, I fail to see anything ambiguous about what DG wrote.  It seems clear based on just what he posted (which is why I quoted it) that we are supposed to accept Fenris as a reliable guide on Tevinter, mages, and magic, and based on his somewhat irrational at time (if understanable) actions in the game regarding all three, I have to wonder about this.

That's all.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 14 mai 2011 - 05:39 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

ipgd wrote...

My main problem with Fenris was that he was so damn... reasonable about everything, considering what he'd been through. He's basically that old lazy, passive racist who nobody cares about because he was a war vet and everyone gets it. I honestly wish he'd actually taken some sort of action against Merrill/Anders/Mage!Hawke at some point.

This is exactly the feeling I got from him too.

I mean, I could like him for just being that guy, but he's almost too reasonable to really be that guy. And he conveninetly gets to be in the one city where he'd be proven right without any effort on his part, too.... which I guess could say something about mages, but Kirkwall is a hellmouth etc etc.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 14 mai 2011 - 06:03 .

[HogarthHughes 3]

Fenris is a voice against mages. Obviously he is biased, as most people who have gone through such an experience would be, but that doesn't mean everything he says is nonsense. The same goes for Anders. It seemed to me that what DG was saying is that Fenris provides another perspective out of the major characters (Cullen/Meredith aside, you don't get quite as much interaction with them and they don't follow you around making comments). The only other companion that really supports the RoA (and generally templars) is Aveline, and thats less about containing/punishing mages than it is about preserving order.

[Paeyne]

Super_Fr33k wrote...

A more valid criticism, IMO, is that the romances lacked depth. I would have been happier with fewer romance options with more detail and more dialogue. I think people need to accept that quality over quantity should win out for party-member romance. If, in an alternate universe, this had cost me romance with Isabela or Merrill, so be it. If you don't see unique aspects of a character during romance, what's the point of it? I feel similarly about ME2, though most playthroughs I swore off new romance for Liara. I'm an old-fashioned, one-blue-chick-but-not-technically-a-chick kind of guy.

This is, primarily, at the core of my problem with the romances.

I tired to like the characters, I really did.  I liked Bethany.  Believe it or not, I liked Carver and totally empathized with his trying to break out from Hawke's shadow.  Varric was a great foil for many of the things happening in Kirkwall.

I didn't like Aveline very much but I respected her.  The rest of the characters came across to me as a mechanism to drive the different sides of the plot rather than characters in their own right.  Even Isabella was the personification of "none of this matters, take care of yourself first" aspect.

Because they were so obviously mechanisms to showcase different aspects of the plot they just came across as very artificial to me.  My emotional investment in a character comes from the character itself rather then a character loosely masking a particular plot ideology.

Perhaps that would have been different if there had been more depth to the characterization.

If you think  I caricaturized all the companions in my initial post then I can only say... yup

For the most part I agree with you.  Each of them have some redeaming qualities.  For me, there was just too little for me to really care.

Modifié par Paeyne, 14 mai 2011 - 05:57 .

[IanPolaris]

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...

Fenris is a voice against mages. Obviously he is biased, as most people who have gone through such an experience would be, but that doesn't mean everything he says is nonsense. The same goes for Anders. It seemed to me that what DG was saying is that Fenris provides another perspective out of the major characters (Cullen/Meredith aside, you don't get quite as much interaction with them and they don't follow you around making comments). The only other companion that really supports the RoA (and generally templars) is Aveline, and thats less about containing/punishing mages than it is about preserving order.

Sebestian is pro-templar and is a romanceable option as well.  Just saying.

-Polaris

[HogarthHughes 3]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sebestian is pro-templar and is a romanceable option as well.  Just saying.

-Polaris

Ah true, I suppose he has some experience with the dangers of magic, at least after his Act II quest, and after Anders blows the Chantry <_<.  I should have mentioned him too.  Still, his stance seems more the result of his upbringing by Chantry doctrine than anything else.  Sebastian can't claim to have spent most of his life as a slave to an evil mage, in a land where such mages have all the power.

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 14 mai 2011 - 06:06 .

[Paeyne]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sebestian is pro-templar and is a romanceable option as well.  Just saying.

-Polaris

All Hawke's companions are very polarized and entrenched in their postion, with the exception of Varric.

For me, it was this that took a great deal away from the companions overall realism.

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
Personal swipes and innuendo aside, I fail to see anything ambiguous about what DG wrote.  It seems clear based on just what he posted (which is why I quoted it) that we are supposed to accept Fenris as a reliable guide on Tevinter, mages, and magic, and based on his somewhat irrational at time (if understanable) actions in the game regarding all three, I have to wonder about this.

I said nothing about him being a reliable guide. I said he offered a voice, and that the people who posted about Tevinter should read what he has to say because most of what they've said in the past is based purely on supposition.

Not that this will stop you, of course, since you read more between the lines than what's actually in the lines. In that case, sure. Rah. Mages bad. Kill them all.

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Personal swipes and innuendo aside, I fail to see anything ambiguous about what DG wrote.  It seems clear based on just what he posted (which is why I quoted it) that we are supposed to accept Fenris as a reliable guide on Tevinter, mages, and magic, and based on his somewhat irrational at time (if understanable) actions in the game regarding all three, I have to wonder about this.

I said nothing about him being a reliable guide. I said he offered a voice, and that the people who posted about Tevinter should read what he has to say because most of what they've said in the past is based purely on supposition.

Not that this will stop you, of course, since you read more between the lines than what's actually in the lines. In that case, sure. Rah. Mages bad. Kill them all.

Whatever.  I didn't seem like you were putting up any cautionary notes to taking Fenris at his word at all based strictly on your own words.  Take that for what it's worth.

-Polaris

Edit:  As for that last sentence/snipe, I have pretty much given up on your world since that's exactly what I expect from you in the future.  I seriously expect an even stronger antimage slant in future releases (if any) based on what I've seen thus far.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 14 mai 2011 - 07:23 .

[Paeyne]

David Gaider wrote...

Not that this will stop you, of course, since you read more between the lines than what's actually in the lines. In that case, sure. Rah. Mages bad. Kill them all.

I feel very sorry for mages.  (Arguments about how dangerous or oppressed they may be aside).  There is really no place they can go that they are not persecuted in one way or another.  Even in Tevinter mages are persecuted by other mages and have to seek power just to protect themselves.

Rivain seems to be the only region out of reach of the Chantry and mages are relatively accepted.  (I can picture mages in the Anderfels snapped up fast by the Wardens with their Right of Slavery.. er.. Conscription.)

[Deztyn]

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Personal swipes and innuendo aside, I fail to see anything ambiguous about what DG wrote.  It seems clear based on just what he posted (which is why I quoted it) that we are supposed to accept Fenris as a reliable guide on Tevinter, mages, and magic, and based on his somewhat irrational at time (if understanable) actions in the game regarding all three, I have to wonder about this.

I said nothing about him being a reliable guide. I said he offered a voice, and that the people who posted about Tevinter should read what he has to say because most of what they've said in the past is based purely on supposition.

Not that this will stop you, of course, since you read more between the lines than what's actually in the lines. In that case, sure. Rah. Mages bad. Kill them all.

On the one hand, I really, really want to sig this.

On the other hand, it will probably be taken as further 'proof' that "David Gaider hates mages OMG." and invite even more "Bad Dez, you genocidal genocider you" comments as well.  :innocent:

Decisions, decisions.

Modifié par Deztyn, 14 mai 2011 - 08:34 .

[Dave of Canada]

Deztyn wrote...
On the one hand, I really, really want to sig this.

On the other hand, it will probably be taken as further 'proof' that "David Gaider hates mages OMG." and invite even more "Bad Dez, you genocidal genocider you" comments as well.  :innocent:

Decisions, decisions.

Meh, you should do it. When people are trying to make you feel bad instead of trying to focus on your argument, you can shrug and ignore it. They'd do it regardless considering they always do it.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 14 mai 2011 - 08:37 .

[RosaAquafire]

Ever notice that IanPolaris gets mad at David for setting the rules of the world he made. It's like, David says, "Oh, we didn't really feel that we accurately captured the nuances of the moral dilemna with mages in DA:O, so we made sure that we took care to really highlight that in DA2 and I think it says the intent of what we're trying to say a lot better and more accurately."

And IanPolaris gets mad. How DARE you create this world differently than I personally want it to be?! A fantasy universe where wizards aren't worshipped and adored? I REFUSE!

Not that there's any point arguing it, sigh.

[IanPolaris]

RosaAquafire wrote...

Ever notice that IanPolaris gets mad at David for setting the rules of the world he made. It's like, David says, "Oh, we didn't really feel that we accurately captured the nuances of the moral dilemna with mages in DA:O, so we made sure that we took care to really highlight that in DA2 and I think it says the intent of what we're trying to say a lot better and more accurately."

And IanPolaris gets mad. How DARE you create this world differently than I personally want it to be?! A fantasy universe where wizards aren't worshipped and adored? I REFUSE!

Not that there's any point arguing it, sigh.

It's one thing to clarify.  It's quite another to slant (and this has been admitted) the data to make us draw a diffferent conclusion than a balanced protrayal of the data would have provided, and another yet to change the rules because you don't like the feedback.  Enough said.

-Polaris

[Deztyn]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Meh, you should do it. When people are trying to make you feel bad instead of trying to focus on your argument, you can shrug and ignore it. They'd do it regardless considering they always do it.

That is true.

Still, I'm thinking it would be naughty to potentially encourage thread derails. I'm actually amused by the whole thing where pixel genocide makes me a morally bankrupt babykilling monster and I should be ashamed of myself.

But erm, speaking of derails, uh, romance . . .  Fenris is hot?

Shame about the three year dry spell.

That was rough.

Modifié par Deztyn, 14 mai 2011 - 09:10 .

[TEWR]

Merrill:   I am sure there are many who find Merrill's wide eyed naivete appealing.  I am not one.  The problem is that this naivete extends to her belief that she can control demons and blood magic, no matter how often  she is repeatedly proven wrong.  I suppose dating the girl voted most likely to become an abomination might be interesting but hardly healthy

I'm always drawn to the threads where Merrill bashing/praising/whatever goes down. Be warned, I'm making a massive wall of text.


Anyway, she doesn't believe that she can control demons. She knows all spirits are dangerous and asks Hawke to travel with her to the top of Sundermount in the unlikely event that a demon, who was trapped for centuries in a statue due to very ancient and powerful magic, would escape and possess her. She has only seen Audacity a total of 3 times. Those times are: 1) when she and Marethari go to the statue in the short story, 2) when she goes to learn blood magic, and 3) when she goes there with Hawke.

Now, that hardly seems like a woman who claims she can control demons. As for blood magic, it is not inherently evil. It's a tool like anything else. To quote myself from another thread where the issue was how to view blood magic

Welp, I feel the need to rant about blood magic, only because it's 4 a.m where I am and I can't sleep. So, you know, I need something to pass the time by.
Blood Magic is not inherently evil. It has power yes, but so does a sword, a crossbow, a ballista, a gun, etc. It is only a tool. Tools are deemed good or evil by the methods in which they are utilized. The saying "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" can apply here if changed slightly:

Blood Magic doesn't kill people. Evil and heartless mages kill people.

The Chantry forbids it (imo and Avernus', foolishly so) because of the Tevinter Imperium's past history. Not only that, they claim to know what Andraste meant by her words "Magic must serve man, not rule over him". The problem with this phrase is that there is more than one meaning to it, and only Andraste knew what she meant. There are three meanings that spring to mind:

• The Andrastian belief that mages are dangerous and should be corralled like animals.
  
  
  
• Magic should be used to help the people (the Tevinter way of it)
  
  
  
• Magic should not influence the mind of a mage. With great power comes great responsibility. This, I feel, is what Andraste truly meant, along with the Tevinter interpretation.

Now, there are different types of Blood Magic. There's the powerful, mind controlling kind we all know and talk about. But there are less well known ways of utilizing blood magic.

The first that springs to mind is the Joining ritual. Consuming Darkspawn blood mixed magically with lyrium and Archdemon blood is Blood Magic. Now people will try to dispute this fact saying "Blood + Magic =/= Blood Magic."

However, they are wrong. The Reaver specialization's Codex says that by consuming Dragon's blood and gaining abilities, it is a definite form of Blood Magic. Blood Magic isn't about only using your blood for power. It's also about gaining power from blood. The same rules that apply to the Reaver spec. apply to the Grey Warden Joining ritual. We also know that the Grey Wardens employ blood magic because it helps to kill the Darkspawn quicker. And with proper ethical research, great strides can and have been made into researching more effective ways of understanding the Darkspawn (see the Avernus quest in DA2 if you let not only Avernus live while continuing ethical research, but spared the Architect)

Secondly, there is the Scrying from Witch Hunt. When Finn asks for Ariane's blood, you can call him out on if it's Blood Magic or not. He says it is. By using her blood, they gain the ability to find the Lights of Arlathan.

Third, we have phylacteries. Possibly one of the biggest, if not the biggest, hypocrisies the Chantry is made of. Templars take the blood of a mage and seal it in a vial. Should that mage escape, they use the phylactery to track him/her down. They gain the ability to find the mage in a population of enormous sizes. This is Blood Magic, which the Chantry condones as long as they are using it. Or perhaps they refuse to admit that they are wrong and it is blood magic.

Now, let's examine how to learn Blood Magic. Anders says in Dragon Age 2 to Merrill, and I'm paraphrasing here:

• "Tell me you just cut your wrist on accident and discovered blood magic."

which implies that any mage can stumble across the power of blood magic, but without proper training it is useless. He also states in a banter with Fenris (again, paraphrasing):

• "You have to look a demon in the eye to learn blood magic"

which seems to me to mean that demons can teach a mage how to properly use blood magic. Again, any mage can stumble across its' powers, but without training it is useless.

Mages can also learn Blood Magic from a book, thus eliminating/mitigating the risk of consorting with a demon or cutting your wrists too deeply. Jowan is a case in point, as he learned Blood Magic from a book. He tells you he only skimmed a little bit of a book and dabbled. The irony in this situation is that the Chantry forbids Blood Magic learning, yet the Circle of Ferelden kept books on the subject, which Irving confiscated later on. Whether they were known to be there is a mystery, but if they were the Chantry is operating on some faulty logic. A line I came up with and used a lot regarding this scenario is as follows:

You can teach a man that bombs are dangerous without giving him a blueprint of how to make said bomb.

Next, let's examine a comprehensive list (to the best of my knowledge) of known blood mages and determine whether they fall into the good, evil, or neutral category.

• Uldred- Bat**** insane Blood Mage who almost destroyed the Circle, and in turn was possessed (or merged willingly?) with a Pride demon. EVIL.
  
  
  
• Jowan - A kind and good, albeit bumbling, mage who didn't want his emotions torn away from him. He was in love with Lily, and because he dabbled in blood magic he would've been made Tranquil? I can understand what he did. A lot of people blame the whole Arl of Redcliffe quest on him, but I don't see that as the case. I don't remember whether I claimed he was innocent or guilty in another thread that talked about blood mages, but I feel if you're going to blame Jowan, so too must you blame Isolde and Loghain. However, one could argue that Connor's deal with the demon was the only thing that kept Eamon alive. If he had died, the Wardens would've been royally screwed.
  
  
  
• Anders - Good. You have the option of making him a Blood Mage in Awakening, and your Warden can even address this fact in Amaranthine. This inevitably makes him a Blood Mage, as the storyline then considers it canon. However, Anders in DA2 views BM as bad, no doubt due to his Andrastian beliefs. So one can assume that sometime between Awakening and DA2, if you made him a BM, he ceased practicing the arcane art.
  
  
  
• Merrill - Possibly one of the smartest mages out there. She is able to recognize that all Fade spirits are dangerous and there is no separation of them. She practices her BM safely, and only uses her blood. That is in itself the mark of a good BM. She even knows how to protect herself in the Fade against spirits, saying that the only thing you can believe is yourself. The only time she betrays you is in Feynriel's quest in his mind, and that's only because the demon forced her to betray you much like the Sloth demon's minions in Broken Circle did to some of your companions by giving them a false reality. She even addresses this afterwards. GOOD.
  
  
  
• Quentin - Evil and bat**** insane. I don't need to give anymore details on it. We know the deal. He went insane after his wife died. I kinda feel sympathy for him, but not really.
  
  
  
• Gascard - sort of a grey area himself. He helps Hawke, but only so he can kill Quentin and learn necromancy (which wasn't that available in the Spirit school?). If you convince him that what he's doing is a bad move, he relents on Blood Magic and vows to live a better life, assuming you let him live. Not many blood mages get a second chance, so I'll place him in the neutral area.
  
  
  
• Alain - Good. He didn't really use it for anything other than freeing the hostage.
  
  
  
• Decimus - bat**** insane. Had a nice wavy hair thing going in the scene where you meet him though. Evil
  
  
  
• Grace - sane at first. Then goes bat**** insane. Or was possessed prior to that event, since you fight an Abomination of her. So evil
  
  
  
• Orsino - Good, albeit misguided.  Orsino had been fighting Meredith since Year 1 of Hawke's tenure within Kirkwall (Varric says "That's also when the trouble began with the mages"). And in Act 3, Meredith squeezes harder and harder, and forces more mages to undergo the Rite of Tranquility. Mages that have passed their Harrowing. She is growing increasingly paranoid and insane, and Orsino fights back within his power. After Anders plays Jenga with the Chantry, the Mage-Templar conflict now spirals into a full-blown war. Meredith called the Right of Annulment not because Elthina was killed, but because she could. She had wanted to call it for a long time, and she realized then that she could. So she did.
  
  
  
• To separate this for easier reading: Now I don't see Orsino's use of Blood Magic at the end as stupid. Rather, I see it as the act of a desperate man who is taking on an army with only a few handfuls of mages, most of whom utilize magic that the Templars are able to nullify. Was it stupid? Undoubtably. Was it understandable? Completely. The problem with that fight with the Templars beforehand was that it was too easy, so that gave us the illusion that Orsino was acting irrationally without reason. So I can't fault Orsino for thinking he only had one option left.

 Now finally, we must examine the origins of Blood Magic. We have conflicting sources on the matter. We have:

• 
  
• Blood Magic came from the Old Gods.
  
  
  
• Blood Magic was taught to mages by demons.
  
  
  
• Blood Magic was first used by the elves of Arlathan and then the Tevinter Imperium took that knowledge for themselves.

We don't know which, if any, is the true scenario. For all we know some mage picked up a book entitled Blood Magic and You: A Beginner's Guide On How to Properly Slit Your Wrists

So, in closing to this long rant that took me 45 minutes to type out and think on, blood magic is not inherently evil. It can be used for evil purposes, but that does not make it evil. If it did, then using a gun should be considered evil and banned forever. It's a tool. Nothing more.

anything you want me to elaborate on people, feel free to ask and I shall try my best.

Blood magic can be controlled, but it should be limited solely to a person using only their own blood.  No one else's. Last I checked, this was exactly what Merrill did. If you saw her use someone else's blood, we must've played different games. I also feel that blood magic can be used for medical purposes as a way to keep a person who has an artery or vein severed from spewing blood all over the place. Combine this with a Spirit Healer's talents and you have a great medical practice.


As for the Eluvian, people are too quick to blame Merrill for the actions that transpired. First off, in DA:O she was already enraptured by the Eluvian. When Duncan destroyed it, didn't she act in shock? As for her personality in DA2, this is only around humans. Around her clan she acted in a very different fashion, showing confidence and not afraid to display her beliefs. It's only around Hawke and company that she babbles, mainly due to her being inexperienced with humans. That's not to say she may not have babbled amongst the clan, but around the clan she was very much like her DA:O counterpart.

Secondly, given the knowledge that we know of the Eluvian, I trust Merrill more than Marethari. Why? well I'll tell you. Merrill has been studying elven lore concerning the Eluvian longer than Marethari has. Marethari is so afraid of the Eluvian that she believes it's dangerous. If it was still tainted, I'd agree with her. But blood magic cleansed it of the taint (which makes sense since the Taint and blood seem to have something to do with one another). People may say that this is based solely on Merrill's word alone, but she spent 7 years with the thing. And if it was still tainted, it would've spread the taint to the rest of the mirror she built in her house and amplified it. The taint is something that always infects and spreads through the air. She even tells the Keeper repeatedly of this.

Anyway, Merrill took the lore she knew and managed to build an Eluvian from scratch. Granted it was just a fancy doorstop still, but she still managed to take what knowledge she had and build one. She knows more about the Eluvian's construction than we do, and arguably may have completed it.

When she went to retrieve the Arulin'holm from Marethari, we discover that Pol is afraid of her. At first we don't know why, but it's so bad that Pol acts like an idiot and runs deeper into the Varterral's lair. Then, we discover that Marethari has spread baseless fears to the clan in the hopes that Merrill will return.

"Merrill will bring back the Blight disease!"
*clan is now afraid*
"come home to us, da'len"

If the taint was still present in the Eluvian shard, her ceasing contact with the mirror would not keep it from spreading within Merrill's body and subsequently to the clan. But it wasn't present. So if she had returned, Marethari would've had to explain the whole thing and the clan may have been more inclined to believe Merrill and distrust the Keeper for lying to them.

Jump forward to when we meet Audacity, and we find out that Marethari let herself get possessed (which for all we know may have happened sometime in Act 2 and Audacity was just playing the part of Keeper for some goal it had in mind. Unlikely, but not impossible). She claims that the demon would've used the Eluvian as a gateway to enter the mortal world and possess Merrill. But we have a few things to show that Marethari is wrong:

1. We know that an Eluvian links to a place beyond Thedas and beyond the Fade, so Marethari couldn't have been right.
2. We know that the Tevinter Imperium used blood magic on the Eluvians and all they managed to get were fancy telephones.

So I see no reason to trust the word of an Abomination when we not only have proof to invalidate her claims, we also know that she took no part in studying the Eluvian because she let fear rule over her.

now honestly, in typing this I feel I may have forgotten a few things, but I just really get a little irked when people deny the facts of Merrill's case and call her wrong and stupid. she's probably the smartest mage we've met, aside from Flemeth and Morrigan.

Now, I need more smileys in this post. Merrill = . When people kill Merrill, I end up like this . And as you can tell by my sig and this incredibly long rant about Merrill; I  Merrill

[Paeyne]

@ The Ethereal Writer Redux

Wow.. ok

Since this thread has been derailed several times in several areas I will try and respond to this along the lines of the intent of the thread.

Even if you allow for the fact that blood magic is not "inherently evil" (which I would tend to agree with) that does not alter the fact that it is extremely dangerous and open to abuses (such as mind control and the use of others blood) that normal magic does not. I am not saying Merrill would do either of those things but, as we have seen time and time again, she is the exception and not the rule.

Even if we allow for the fact that Merrill takes every precaution when dealing with demons, stuff happens. She cannot plan against every demon and every eventuality. Even the best lion tamer gets bit once in a while. The problem with a slip with a demon is that you only get one and its pretty well over for you.

I would not want a relationship with Merrill for several reasons. I would spend half my time worrying about her safety and the other half about the safety of others. I am not arguing that she isn't a good person. I am not even arguing she isn't a smart mage. I think she is both over-confident and naive. I consider that an extremely dangerous mix for anyone, never mind a mage.

Many people spend time defending her. Perhaps they are right. I could be wrong. I have been wrong before. I do wonder though, if she looked like the elf from Blackpowder Courtesy and talked like Tarhone if they still would be defending her so vehemently. If Igor hobbled up to you and said in a screechy lisp that he knew what he was doing with demons and everything was going to be fine would you be so ready to defend him?

[Xilizhra]

which in this case lies in the issue being difficult and morally ambiguous, hence why he "advocates" for the templars when you do that thing you do when you reduce everything to the most base, black and white literal interpretations possible and discard half the of the worldbuilding work that went into making the issue an actual issue and not some hilarious Disney villain act of subjugation)

I honestly can't say that he's too far off. The parts that make it morally ambiguous are mostly the fears of the in-universe cast.

Even if you allow for the fact that blood magic is not "inherently evil" (which I would tend to agree with) that does not alter the fact that it is extremely dangerous and open to abuses (such as mind control and the use of others blood) that normal magic does not. I am not saying Merrill would do either of those things but, as we have seen time and time again, she is the exception and not the rule.

Actually, the only mage whom we see sacrificing someone else for a power boost is Huon. There are other blood mages who do other evil things, but they tend to be unrelated to blood magic.

Even if we allow for the fact that Merrill takes every precaution when dealing with demons, stuff happens. She cannot plan against every demon and every eventuality. Even the best lion tamer gets bit once in a while. The problem with a slip with a demon is that you only get one and its pretty well over for you.

Erm, no. Having a slip where things are "over" would be so enormous that it wouldn't really qualify as a slip, and the only time when she was maybe in danger from it was in A New Path.

Many people spend time defending her. Perhaps they are right. I could be wrong. I have been wrong before. I do wonder though, if she looked like the elf from Blackpowder Courtesy and talked like Tarhone if they still would be defending her so vehemently. If Igor hobbled up to you and said in a screechy lisp that he knew what he was doing with demons and everything was going to be fine would you be so ready to defend him?

First, I wanted to hug the Blackpowder Courtesy elf. Second, yes. If people were only thinking with their respective genitalia, the odds seem high that more of them would just be with Isabela.

[Paeyne]

Xilizhra wrote...

First, I wanted to hug the Blackpowder Courtesy elf. Second, yes. If people were only thinking with their respective genitalia, the odds seem high that more of them would just be with Isabela.

You missed my point entirely.

I am saying that if you have two people doing blood magic, one a cute, perky, sweet elf and the other an ugly wringled old crone the reactions would be different even if the actions were identical.

[Perles75]

In general, I find the romances in DA2 more touching and personal than in DAO. All the romanceable companions are faulty in a way or another (being human -or elven, or whatever- beings) and perhaps this is the reason several people don't like them, but I don't see how one can say the romances in DA2 are shallow.

I have romanced Anders in my first walkthrough and I found the development of the story very touching (in a greek-tragedy-doomed-relationship kind of way) and his reactions (regarding the relationship) very believable and human, with pretty intense scenes.

[Xilizhra]

Paeyne wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

First, I wanted to hug the Blackpowder Courtesy elf. Second, yes. If people were only thinking with their respective genitalia, the odds seem high that more of them would just be with Isabela.

You missed my point entirely.

I am saying that if you have two people doing blood magic, one a cute, perky, sweet elf and the other an ugly wringled old crone the reactions would be different even if the actions were identical.

Some will. Some won't. I count myself among the latter.

[WhiteKnyght]

David Gaider wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Does that strike you as a fair criticism? Or am I missing something?

Fenris's role in the story is pretty clear, isn't it? He's the only voice in the group that is clearly critical of the mages, and who speaks from the voice of experience. I think some of his dialogues are a must-read for those people who like to go on about how mages have it so much better in Tevinter, or how mages ruling themselves would clearly have much better results than the Chantry.

That said, he's not tied into the plot as much, but that's why he's optional.

Fenris' experiences are also half-truths due to his amnesia. he spends most of his time blaming mages for all of his problems condemning mages for justifying their actions. But the real truth was that he wanted that magical power he has and even fought and likely killed others for it to serve his own goals(even if they were noble intentions).

And in the fade, Fenris gave into temptation and turned on Hawke. So deep down Fenris is really jealous of the power the Magisters hold(Money, power, influence, and the ability to abuse it at his whims). Which is why Wryme was able to use that against him. You cant tempt a man with something he doesn't want after all.

So Fenris offers some input, but he's hardly an expert because his statements are often biased generalizations and thus, not objective.

And my opinion is that the Chantry seriously needs to reconsider how they do things. Magic may be a dangerous weapon but arguably there are other powers just as dangerous. And It would be a better use of their time and resources to just fight crimes with magic involved rather than keep mages under lock and key because they might commit a crime.

[Paeyne]

Vlondril wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

Viyu wrote...

 The fact Karl is not touched on at ALL is what is so suspicious, and is what bothers me. You would think he'd at least have some regrets, that he'd miss his close "friend".

The Anderfans will want to crusify me for this but...

If I look at Anders with a very cynical eye, I could argue that he is manipulating Hawke (both sexes) from the very beginning.

We have, after all, only his word that his relationship with Karl was anything more than friendship.  I agree that the fact Karl is not touched on is very suspicious as is the lack of grief about Karl beyond the initial loss.  Most suspicious of all is that Karl does not take his last moments of clarity so say goodbye to the man he loves.  "Anders, I love you and if you truly love me you won't let me live like this." might almost be considered manditory in the situation.  Karl just doesn't act like a someone given one last opportunity to express his feelings to the man he loves. 

I would think that Hawke, as a strong individual, unafraid of the deeproads and willing to help Anders rescue someone from the Templars (and the consequences it might bring) would be a golden opportunity for someone who is afraid of being hunted by both the Templars and the Wardens. The fact that Hawke is not afraid that Anders is a form of abomination would only serve to cement this.

In the case of a male Hawke, I would think sleeping with Hawke would be a small price to pay for the protection he affords and the possible help he can provide.  Would Anders be this mercenary?  Why not.  People string other people along for a lot less.  Anders demonstraites later in the game that he is not above emotional blackmail and manipulation to accomplish his goals.  It becomes pretty obvious over the story that Anders/Justice will do just about anything to exact vengence.  This is not the Anders of Awakening.

Is any of this the truth?  <Shrug> who knows.  It certainly fits the facts as much as any other explanation and explains why he never showed any outward interest in men previously.

Now that is a fascinating thought!  Considering how manipulative Anders can be during the Justice personal quest, even when Hawke fully supports him, I could definitely see him basically using Hawke (either sex) to further his goals.

With Anders, everything is second to the cause of the mages.  Best case scenario, Hawke is a (distant) second banana, and worst case, she's a means to an end.  Seriously, I really love this theory!:happy:

I just ran through the Karl part again in one of my playthoughs.  It seems that Karl was completely unware that Anders was joined with Justice.  That means that they either were not lovers or that Anders did not tell Karl.  Either possibility speaks volumes IMO.