1008 réponses à ce sujet

[RosaAquafire]

For crying out loud, this question has been answered and talked about so many times it's been beaten into the ground.

Bioware intended for this issue to be morally grey. They did from the start. That was in fact, iirc, the inspiration for the entire Dragon Age world. How would someone with the powers of a D&D mage be treated in the real world? They'd either control everything or be regulated and oppressed, there wouldn't be any inbetween. This was literally the inspiration for Thedas.

They goofed up on Origins by letting the player walk in the steps of a mage without representing the other POV. Instead of coming across as a complex issue, as they intended, it came across very black and white. Mages were oppressed innocents. Nobody who makes choices based on their own morality instead of roleplay would ever choose to annul the Circle in the Broken Circle quest. Bioware had telemetry that told them this.

There were also a lot of complaints on the whole that Origins's "moral choices" were very simplistic with easy answers. At best, we got morally right vs. pragmatically practical. At worst, we got good vs. bad. That works for some games but Origins had been advertised as being full of hard choices and wasn't. The mages debate was especially one-sided and Bioware realized they fumbled it.

They didn't want us to side with the templars in DA2, they wanted us to not immediately and obviously be able to identify who to side with. They wanted us to have to think about the debate and see the logic of both sides and the difficulty that this world has finding a solution to deal with this very real problem. I don't know how many times this needs to be said before a few certain people hear it and stop grandstanding everywhere, but there we go.

Personally, I do think it could have been handled better. Show the good and the bad on both sides instead of just the bad. I would have liked to have had another Templar character aside from Cullen who showed that there are perfectly good and reasonable people in that order, and another mage character who really talked about how hard it is to resist demons but how strong their convictions to hold on to themselves were. But I was happy to actually see mages losing themselves to the pressures of the Fade, because it was an element of the setting that was present in codexs and the world's concept, but poorly displayed in DA:O.

I don't know why I'm bothering to comment, though. This argument is so frustrating and eternal and the two specific posters who keep drawing it out are incapable of compromise or middle ground. And maybe that's a good thing, maybe we should admire them for being strong in their convictions, no matter how unimportant the issue in question is. Still, it makes the point of debate a little questionable.

[Melca36]

Harid wrote...

Playest wrote...

Persephone
wrote...

Playest wrote...

And that accomplishes what? Do you honestly believe that which side you come
down on will affect the outcome of the conflict?

 

Yes, I honestly believe that.

So you think that Bioware will maintain 2 universes one where the Templars win
and one where the mages do?





 

They won't, and if you expect them to, you are insane.

If the mages win, they don't have support of the common man.  As such, they would have to either all go away to their own country somewhere or try to recreate the Tevinter Imperium.

If the Templars win, which is likely what will happen because they have the support of the common man, mages will be subjugated even further given what Bioware has shown us from this conflict.

Bioware was too stupid not to try and create a mage that non violent and that got support from the common man much a kin to Dr. Martin Luther King.  Instead we get people like Anders who act like terrorists, and we are supposed to believe that regular people would get behind these kinds of people when it directly benefits them not to, and they are proving everything the chantry says is true.  We are supposed to believe that these mages can actually have a global revolution without someone tipping off Templars, or whatever, given that mages really have no way to communicate to other mage towers without a regular person bringing the news from somewhere.

It was a stupid plot point, and in my opinion the Qunari Rebellion of act 2 would have been a much better one to leap from.

Excuse me but what game where you playing?

The were plenty of non mages who SUPPORTED the mages and felt they were repressed.

If you think this war is going to be only MAGE VS NON MAGE....you will be very disappointed.  

[Herr Uhl]

Playest wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Uhm.... What?

Do ginger people have a natural chance of blowing up in my face? No.
Is this equation then worth null and void? Yes.

Thats not a moral difference it's a practical one

So there would be no moral difference between imprisoning legaly insane and dangerous people and something arbitrary like people with a foot size over 12?

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

except prisoners are prisoners because of choices they made. They weren't born prisoners


Men with one hand are men with one hand because of an event that may or may not have been a choice, but they weren't born that way (usually. Some rare cases of people being born with one hand have happened). They could get either a prosthetic limb or pay for surgery to have a new hand or arm.


A mage is born a mage and forever will be a mage. You can't stop being a mage without also ceasing to be a person with emotions.

Irrelevant to the point of wether or not they are an ethnic or cultural minority. They are neither.

And to say that a man born with only one hand could pay for surgery to become a two-handed man, is like saying a mage could just let himself become tranquil. Then he wouldn't be a amge anymore.

It's entirely relevant. You're arguing that people who made a choice to be who they are is equivalent to a person being born the way they are with no say in what happens to them.


And I didn't know getting a new arm and/or hand would make a person an emotionless husk. Huh..... the more you know....


and remember kids, knowing is half the battle.

Now you are mixing them up. Getting a new hand, would make a one-handed man a two-handed man. A mage being made tranquil, would make him a non-mage.
So the mage has just about as much choice about being a mage, as a man born with one hand does. The choice of the mage do result i some arguably undesireable sideffects though.

[Playest]

I agree with Rosa. I think she is spot on in terms of the writers intent.

Now if only the execution wasn't so horribly bungled.

[ddv.rsa]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Now you are mixing them up. Getting a new hand, would make a one-handed man a two-handed man. A mage being made tranquil, would make him a non-mage.
So the mage has just about as much choice about being a mage, as a man born with one hand does. The choice of the mage do result i some arguably undesireable sideffects though.

Becoming tranquil destroys who you are, getting a new hand doesn't. Not much of a choice.

Modifié par ddv.rsa, 16 juin 2011 - 07:29 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

It is a choice nevertheless.

[Playest]

Herr Uhl wrote...
So there would be no moral difference between imprisoning legaly insane and dangerous people and something arbitrary like people with a foot size over 12?

Hmmm well said. But it think the question is closer to locking up people with big feet because people with big feet are more likely to go insane. Even if for the sake of argument that was true. I dont think it would be moral, practical yes but not moral.

[ddv.rsa]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It is a choice nevertheless.

Honest question: what would you do?

[EmperorSahlertz]

ddv.rsa wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It is a choice nevertheless.

Honest question: what would you do?

I cannot say. I have never had to fear an encounter with a demon, or to fear I'd be unable to control my powers. But if I were a mage, I'd guess I'd be a loyalist, and try and avoid the tranquility.

[SmokePants]

I like these threads because the wing nuts on this board make me laugh.

Let's imagine an Earth where 1/100 babies born had an inoperable nuclear weapon lodged in their brain that would go off if someone hurt their feelings. If you think for one second that they would be allowed to grow up and walk around as freely and happily as they please, you are a fool of the highest order. And that's just hilarious.

[Playest]

ddv.rsa wrote...

Becoming tranquil destroys who you are, getting a new hand doesn't. Not much of
a choice.

Tranquility is a whole other can of worms. Since Meredith plans on killing
everybody not making them tranquil I think we should stick to that.

As an aside was I the only person who thought the whole "right of
tranquility" was handled much differently in DA2 than is DAO.

My first origins play through was as a mage so one of the very first
experiences with the game was talking to Owian about becoming tranquil, I feel
in love with the game when over the course of the conversation he took me from
the default "I can't believe the did this horrible thing" to actually
wondering what it meant to be a happy and fulfilled human.  

In contrast they waved the handled the "Tranquility" quest at the
begging of DA2 completely threw away the complexity and moral ambiguity established
in the original.

Modifié par Playest, 16 juin 2011 - 07:44 .

[Playest]

SmokePants wrote...

I like these threads because the wing nuts on this board make me laugh.

Let's imagine an Earth where 1/100 babies born had an inoperable nuclear weapon lodged in their brain that would go off if someone hurt their feelings. If you think for one second that they would be allowed to grow up and walk around as freely and happily as they please, you are a fool of the highest order. And that's just hilarious.

Your right but would it would it be "justice"?

[ddv.rsa]

SmokePants wrote...

I like these threads because the wing nuts on this board make me laugh.

Let's imagine an Earth where 1/100 babies born had an inoperable nuclear weapon lodged in their brain that would go off if someone hurt their feelings. If you think for one second that they would be allowed to grow up and walk around as freely and happily as they please, you are a fool of the highest order. And that's just hilarious.

I doubt mages are as common as 1/100.

[ddv.rsa]

Playest wrote...

Your right but would it would it be "justice"?

Justice is a funny concept. I don't equate mages with nuclear weapons, but let's go with SmokePants' scenario:

Would it be justice to gamble with the lives of 99 so 1 can have a chance at life?

Modifié par ddv.rsa, 16 juin 2011 - 07:52 .

[TEWR]

the mage numbers seem to be increasing, if the looney in the Hanged Man is right.

His words were "My mother used to tell me that there are more mages around than when she was a child."

of course he chalks it up to the smoke lyrium in the water.

But assuming that's the only thing that he says that isn't crazy, then meh.
 
But if everyone becomes a mage like Sandal predicts, let's just lock up everybody!

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 16 juin 2011 - 07:53 .

[Playest]

ddv.rsa wrote...

SmokePants wrote...

I like these threads because the wing nuts on this board make me laugh.

Let's imagine an Earth where 1/100 babies born had an inoperable nuclear weapon lodged in their brain that would go off if someone hurt their feelings. If you think for one second that they would be allowed to grow up and walk around as freely and happily as they please, you are a fool of the highest order. And that's just hilarious.

I doubt mages are as common as 1/100.

thats not the point it doesn't matter if its 1/2 or 1/1,000,000 the question remains the same 

[ddv.rsa]

Playest wrote...

thats not the point it doesn't matter if its 1/2 or 1/1,000,000 the question remains the same 

I know, but I wasn't addressing your scenario.

Modifié par ddv.rsa, 16 juin 2011 - 07:55 .

[Playest]

ddv.rsa wrote...

Playest wrote...

Your right but would it would it be "justice"?

Justice is a funny concept. I don't equate mages with nuclear weapons, but let's go with SmokePants' scenario:

Would it be justice to gamble with the lives of 99 so 1 can have a chance at life?

No i wouldn't. I think that the Circles should and even must exisit in some form. But at the same time I would acknowdege that it wasn't moraly justifyable. 

Also we are kind of loseing track of the real issuse here. Where not just talking about locking up the mages. We're talking about meredith wanting to kill for a crime she knows they didn't commit.

[hoorayforicecream]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

Mages aren't even remotely comparable with nuclear weapons. Just saying.

An abomination is capable of killing dozens though. So... not on the scale of a nuclear weapon, but an order of magnitude worse than a crazy guy with an assault rifle.

[Playest]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

Mages aren't even remotely comparable with nuclear weapons. Just saying.

An abomination is capable of killing dozens though. So... not on the scale of a nuclear weapon, but an order of magnitude worse than a crazy guy with an assault rifle.

Think about what Connor did to redcliffe in origins. abominations aren't the worst case scenario. 

[Herr Uhl]

Playest wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...
So there would be no moral difference between imprisoning legaly insane and dangerous people and something arbitrary like people with a foot size over 12?

Hmmm well said. But it think the question is closer to locking up people with big feet because people with big feet are more likely to go insane. Even if for the sake of argument that was true. I dont think it would be moral, practical yes but not moral.

Insane people aren't bound to kill people.

But you seemed to take the stance that anyone getting imprisoned is the same situation from a moral standpoint. I find it odd.

[The Baconer]

Playest wrote...

SmokePants wrote...

I like these threads because the wing nuts on this board make me laugh.

Let's imagine an Earth where 1/100 babies born had an inoperable nuclear weapon lodged in their brain that would go off if someone hurt their feelings. If you think for one second that they would be allowed to grow up and walk around as freely and happily as they please, you are a fool of the highest order. And that's just hilarious.

Your right but would it would it be "justice"?

Justice has nothing to do with it, and this topic would be better if people would discard such ideological opinions.

However, the situation SmokePants described is not at all accurate in relation to the situation in Thedas. A more accurate situation would be imagining an Earth where 1/100 humans are born innately superior, with remarkable abilities. These abilities are dangerous in their raw form, but can be refined and controlled through proper training.

Now, is it 'right' or 'wrong' that such beings enforce their will upon mundane humans? You decide.

[Ryzaki]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

Mages aren't even remotely comparable with nuclear weapons. Just saying.

Nope. They can brainwash you, let demons infest your body, or drain all the blood from you from a distance. 

Much more deadly and efficent than nuclear weapons. At least with those your opponent might end up hurting himself too. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 16 juin 2011 - 08:12 .