1008 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Deztyn wrote...
The choice matters to you. It's been said many times before, it boils down to which you think is more valuable; freedom for the few, or security for the many.

It would have mattered more were we allowed to be more pro-active.

And the whole dilema doens't really work. Mages did nto need to be killed to protect the masses, not when Anders was irght in front of Meredith. It's just Meredith being a lunatic. So the one siding with her, I'd hope, does so very relunctantly thinking that he / she doesn't have much choice in the matter.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Deztyn wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Essentially, I guess I'd rather they say "which answer is correct depends a lot on your pesronal philosophy." Saying that none of the deicsions are better than the others makes me wonder why I should bother making any decisions at all.

The choice matters to you. It's been said many times before, it boils down to which you think is more valuable; freedom for the few, or security for the many.

If you think that the mages have to suffer to ensure the safety of the masses -- you're right.

If you think the mages deserve their freedom even if that puts the common people at greater risk -- obviously, you're wrong you're right.

But see, that isn't the question I want to answer.

The question I want to answer is this: 

If a compromise is the best solution, how do we best reach compromise? Revolution or working with the status quo?

And the former seems obviously much more likely to lead to compromise than the latter. By a very very large margin.

[Harid]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Essentially, I guess I'd rather they say "which answer is correct depends a lot on your pesronal philosophy." Saying that none of the deicsions are better than the others makes me wonder why I should bother making any decisions at all.

The choice matters to you. It's been said many times before, it boils down to which you think is more valuable; freedom for the few, or security for the many.

If you think that the mages have to suffer to ensure the safety of the masses -- you're right.

If you think the mages deserve their freedom even if that puts the common people at greater risk -- obviously, you're wrong you're right.

But see, that isn't the question I want to answer.

The question I want to answer is this: 

If a compromise is the best solution, how do we best reach compromise? Revolution or working with the status quo?

And the former seems obviously much more likely to lead to compromise than the latter. By a very very large margin.

When has revolution ever lead to compromise?

Maybe my history is failing me, but I can't think of one time.  Civil War, no compromise, south crushed, slavery abolished.  The south found new ways to subjugate, the north had no slavery.  John Brown, hung, no compromise, slavery stayed.  French Revolution, no compromise, nobles killed in the street.

If anything working the status quo is the only time it occurs.  Revolution always ends up bad for someone.  In this case, with no support for the mass majority of the populace, it's going to be mages that pay the price.

Modifié par Harid, 16 juin 2011 - 10:12 .

[Herr Uhl]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

[You know I was tongue in cheek, but I highly doubt Putin faked his law degree when he was in his 20s or his judo skills.

Does fighting judo at any point in your life count? Judo fighter is not a very defined term. Anyways, he has nothing on the Il.

[Ryzaki]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...
I don't follow that line of reasoning at all, so I'm just going to say that I disagree with you on this one.

 

Okay. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Harid wrote...
When has revolution ever lead to compromise?

There is one that I can think of, though it required a political mastermind, whose family had been planning the revolution for decades. He brought compromise by eliminating all revolutionary leaders who helped him get to power, including his uncle. He used the revolution to build a state and then crushed it when it became a nuissance. And was thus able to bring reforms to fix the status quo.

I doubt mages will have someone like that around.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 juin 2011 - 10:14 .

[tmp7704]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

You know I was tongue in cheek, but I highly doubt Putin faked his law degree when he was in his 20s or his judo skills.

Yup yup, and i definitely don't doubt his judo skills, since it more than likely was part of the spec ops training   but degrees for high ranking members of the KGB... welp. Let's just say, i don't think he had to fake anything.

[Sanguinerin]

David Gaider wrote...

Those quotes were in response to a poster who was determined to paint the templars as evil oppressors-- when my position has always been there are no easy answers to this particular question. It's very easy for us comfortable western folk to take the attitude that anything which isn't democratic and fair is clearly wrong-- which is a pat answer to a complex problem, especially in a world where the situation is simply not the same as in our own.

You may believe we pushed too hard in the other direction, and that's fair, but if we had intended for there to be one solution there would be no argument about it at all, would there? What you see, after all, is there because we chose for it to be there.

I actually theoretically, and in some practices, agree with the templars. The mages are prone to so much damage--involuntarily or otherwise--that there needs to be a system of discipline and education around. They should be taught about those dangers, trained in their art, and so on. I don't see the Chantry or the templars to be generally oppressive. There are certain people in groups that are, but I whole-heartedly believe that every group has their good and their bad, as well as each shade of gray in-between.

Still, I felt that Dragon Age II pushed too much against the mages. There are small moments that allude to templar oppression--Alain, for instance, and general mage distaste for their keepers--but the mages definitely take the spotlight in the "we're here, we're evil" category.

I liked my Mage Hawke. She never became a blood mage, or did anything terrible with demons or blood magic. Aside from Emile de Launcet, those two are my only fine examples (I've only played a bit with Bethany around as a non-mage character, although I do like what I see of her). I find a lot more examples of good templars, or well-meaning templars, than I see with the mages. They all seem like desperate lunatics waving around blood magic and demonic possession.

I would have certainly liked a few more normal mages thrown into the mix. Well, we did get those three mages begging for their lives if we sided with the templars. Coincidentally, we only get a cutscene where we're allowed to visually save/spare the mages if we side with the templars.

Far too many signs point toward siding with the templars, with Meredith and Aldrik being the few absolutely horrid examples of why we shouldn't. I get the feeling of saving mages more with that one particular cutscene, and I find myself allying with one crazy person instead of a horde of them lead by dear Orsino, whose final moments I don't quite understand when we were actually winning...

However, I still find myself pushing toward siding with the mages. It isn't because anything we see. I feel like there wasn't enough emphasis in the game on siding with them, but rather fighting against them. However, in my mind, I know that there are innocent mages in that tower--somewhere--and I can't agree with Meredith on annulling them just because of the few (or in Kirkwall's case, many) terrible mages.

I would have preferred some satisfaction of actually saving some of those mages when I sided with them, but instead that satisfaction only came from, strangely enough, siding with the templars.

Summary, and with the utmost respect for the writers: I do feel like you all pushed much harder on siding with the templars. There are going to be people who understand both sides, the Chantry's desire (and duty) to protect the people in general, and the mages' desire to have more freedoms. The decision, based on those facts, would be incredibly difficult if that was the case in DAII. However, we just seem to see a whole lot of crazy pushing us to side with the templars, and I have to use my imagination to picture the mages that really don't deserve to be culled because of the actions of the ... overwhelmingly vast majority.

[Harid]

HallowedWarden wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Those quotes were in response to a poster who was determined to paint the templars as evil oppressors-- when my position has always been there are no easy answers to this particular question. It's very easy for us comfortable western folk to take the attitude that anything which isn't democratic and fair is clearly wrong-- which is a pat answer to a complex problem, especially in a world where the situation is simply not the same as in our own.

You may believe we pushed too hard in the other direction, and that's fair, but if we had intended for there to be one solution there would be no argument about it at all, would there? What you see, after all, is there because we chose for it to be there.

I actually theoretically, and in some practices, agree with the templars. The mages are prone to so much damage--involuntarily or otherwise--that there needs to be a system of discipline and education around. They should be taught about those dangers, trained in their art, and so on. I don't see the Chantry or the templars to be generally oppressive. There are certain people in groups that are, but I whole-heartedly believe that every group has their good and their bad, as well as each shade of gray in-between.

Still, I felt that Dragon Age II pushed too much against the mages. There are small moments that allude to templar oppression--Alain, for instance, and general mage distaste for their keepers--but the mages definitely take the spotlight in the "we're here, we're evil" category.

I liked my Mage Hawke. She never became a blood mage, or did anything terrible with demons or blood magic. Aside from Emile de Launcet, those two are my only fine examples (I've only played a bit with Bethany around as a non-mage character, although I do like what I see of her). I find a lot more examples of good templars, or well-meaning templars, than I see with the mages. They all seem like desperate lunatics waving around blood magic and demonic possession.

I would have certainly liked a few more normal mages thrown into the mix. Well, we did get those three mages begging for their lives if we sided with the templars. Coincidentally, we only get a cutscene where we're allowed to visually save/spare the mages if we side with the templars.

Far too many signs point toward siding with the templars, with Meredith and Aldrik being the few absolutely horrid examples of why we shouldn't. I get the feeling of saving mages more with that one particular cutscene, and I find myself allying with one crazy person instead of a horde of them lead by dear Orsino, whose final moments I don't quite understand when we were actually winning...

However, I still find myself pushing toward siding with the mages. It isn't because anything we see. I feel like there wasn't enough emphasis in the game on siding with them, but rather fighting against them. However, in my mind, I know that there are innocent mages in that tower--somewhere--and I can't agree with Meredith on annulling them just because of the few (or in Kirkwall's case, many) terrible mages.

I would have preferred some satisfaction of actually saving some of those mages when I sided with them, but instead that satisfaction only came from, strangely enough, siding with the templars.

Summary, and with the utmost respect for the writers: I do feel like you all pushed much harder on siding with the templars. There are going to be people who understand both sides, the Chantry's desire (and duty) to protect the people in general, and the mages' desire to have more freedoms. The decision, based on those facts, would be incredibly difficult if that was the case in DAII. However, we just seem to see a whole lot of crazy pushing us to side with the templars, and I have to use my imagination to picture the mages that really don't deserve to be culled because of the actions of the ... overwhelmingly vast majority.

If you posted here pre DA:2, you would kinda understand why Bioware did what it did.

I just think they did it with the grace of a sledgehammer.

[MichaelFinnegan]

IanPolaris wrote...

Harid wrote...

The Baconer wrote...

Zanallen wrote...
Pretty much, though I can't say that I don't see where the Chantry is coming from. Mages have to be regulated in some form though the current method is no doubt more hamfisted than necessary.

Do they have to be? Is it necessary that they bend over to better convenience those who are, bluntly speaking here, inferior?

If, as a mage, you feel everyone else is inferior to you, you should not be around other people.

Or you should be in the Tevinter Imperium.

I note that magic has always been regulated even if (and in the case of Tevinter especially if) the ruling class was magical.  There are enough valid public safety issues alone that makes it mandatory for mages to get a certain minimum amount of training and of the proper type if only so a stable society could exist.  That in no way justifies the current Circle system as it now stands (or stood pre-Kirkwall).

-Polari9s

Almost everyone agrees that some form of regulation is necessary. For what though? The good of the majority? Some have even suggested that the Circle in some form must exist, whether the Chantry in its current form ceases to exist or not.

For me, the issue with such kind of thinking is that it still treats mages as somehow inherently dangerous. In my view, a far more stable "system," if one can call it that, is to do away with all forms of control. If mages are really a threat, the logical outcome would be the growth of the order of templars.

[Furtled]

Harid wrote...
There were more rational Templars in DA:2 than there were rational mages.  The problem was largely, how they showed Templars to be in DA:O.

I don't know. All the Templars I remember meeting in DA:O seemed fairly rational, agreed on there being more irrational mages in DA2, but it's hard to seperate that from the context provided by the rest of the game on how they're treated by the Kirkwall templars. Uldred's rebellion would have made perfect sense to me under Kirkwalls templars, less so under Fereldens.

From what I remember of DA:O Greagior, Bryant etc. seemed more pragmatic and closer to Thrask's opinion on how the Circle should work, Cullen less so but given the circumstances it's fairly understandable. Granted in DA2 Cullen, Thrask and Keran seemed reasonable, but they were balanced against Alrik, Karras and Meredith; who ranged from zealots to abusive scum. Add the increased Traquils (which we're told is strictly against Chantry law post Harrowing - mind that's Anders talking so he could have been fibbing) and Meredith calling for Annulment when the Gallows isn't overrun by demons, and it paints the Kirkwall templars as a more oppressive and abusive bunch than the Ferelden ones I remember encountering.

All that said if it hadn't been for Meredith clearly being off her nut when you have to make the big choice it would have been a harder decision.

Modifié par Furtled, 17 juin 2011 - 01:26 .

[tmp7704]

The Baconer wrote...

Not even coming close to what I'm talking about but okay.

Well, you talked of being an excellent warrior which requires the sort of training the professional athletes do to achieve. And being a mage requires extensive intellectual studies (as well as exhausting practice) from what we're able to see. Together, i think it's pretty close in terms of needed effort -- how else do you imagine one would become the excellent warrior and a skilled mage that you did talk about?

A warrior mage's field of study would be directly related to being a warrior mage, not trying to be an expert mage and an expert warrior all at once.

But a mage who is using magic to enhance his physical abilities still need to be a well trained and highly skilled mage. How else do you imagine they're going to cast that self-enhancing magic without screwing himself in the process as result of sloppily casted magic going awry? 

And you did specifically talk about that person being a warrior who's equal with excellent non-mage warrior when it comes to the fighting skills. The magic was supposed to be applied on top of that base excellent fighting ability. This ability has to come from somewhere, and this "somewhere" is training.

Modifié par tmp7704, 16 juin 2011 - 10:21 .

[Deztyn]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Deztyn wrote...
The choice matters to you. It's been said many times before, it boils down to which you think is more valuable; freedom for the few, or security for the many.

It would have mattered more were we allowed to be more pro-active.

And the whole dilema doens't really work. Mages did nto need to be killed to protect the masses, not when Anders was irght in front of Meredith. It's just Meredith being a lunatic. So the one siding with her, I'd hope, does so very relunctantly thinking that he / she doesn't have much choice in the matter.

That's the idea, I think. Siding with the templars doesn't require siding with Meredith. Not ideologically anyway. She made her call, the player has no choice about that. The question is what do you do once everything is ready to go to hell. One the one side you have an army of templars ready to do their sworn duty no matter how many die in the process. On the other side the mages who will do anything to survive. Are you going to defend those mages even if it means letting the (almost inevitable) abominations escape with the innocent or are you going to support the system even with a madwoman at it's head. Neither is a good choice. Neither is supposed to be a good choice.

[Sanguinerin]

Harid wrote...

If you posted here pre DA:2, you would kinda understand why Bioware did what it did.

I just think they did it with the grace of a sledgehammer.

I'm afraid that I don't understand this. If I posted on the BSN before DAII, I would understand why BioWare pushed against mages so much?

Well, I did, and I don't.

I agree with the Circles. I've always played dutiful Chantry followers. Wynne is my favorite companion, and if I had to choose a Fraternity, it would be the Aequitarians. I believe that the community at large is this diverse as well, whether one side or the other speaks more than the other in forum posts isn't really something I care about.

I would have had a difficult time choosing if things were as they are in DAO. For DAII, however, I feel like everything I know about what's happened in the game is screaming, "annul the Circle!" but my gut instinct to try and save more innocent lives screams, "you can't let Meredith do this!" and, ultimately, saving innocents is what I try to do the best. Unfortunately, the only way for me to get satisfaction out of saving mages is by siding with the templars as well.

I will also never understand why a maddened lady of justice who knew the culprit behind the Chantry explosion would ever hand the decision of Anders' fate over to Hawke, while I'm talking about these particular moments. Sebastian was the only one with any real sense in that scene.

[Sanguinerin]

Harid wrote...
There were more rational Templars in DA:2 than there were rational mages.  The problem was largely, how they showed Templars to be in DA:O.

The only templar in Origins that I found to be completely irrational (overall, or in the end) was the post-game dialogue box about Cullen. Interestingly enough, however, he seemed to be one of the most sane people to me in all of DAII.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Harid wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Deztyn wrote...
The choice matters to you. It's been said many times before, it boils down to which you think is more valuable; freedom for the few, or security for the many.

But see, that isn't the question I want to answer.

The question I want to answer is this: 

If a compromise is the best solution, how do we best reach compromise? Revolution or working with the status quo?

And the former seems obviously much more likely to lead to compromise than the latter. By a very very large margin.

When has revolution ever lead to compromise?

Maybe my history is failing me, but I can't think of one time.  Civil War, no compromise, south crushed, slavery abolished.  The south found new ways to subjugate, the north had no slavery.  John Brown, hung, no compromise, slavery stayed.  French Revolution, no compromise, nobles killed in the street.

If anything working the status quo is the only time it occurs.  Revolution always ends up bad for someone.  In this case, with no support for the mass majority of the populace, it's going to be mages that pay the price.

I guess we have different ideas about what constitutes compromise.

At the end of the Revolutionary war, we still had ties to England. They kept Canada. And some of the founding fathers were monarchists, who wanted America to have a king. When we hashed out this whole American business, it was made of compromise. And we did that by having a revolution, and then sitting everyone down and saying "Ok, we have a chance to build a system from the ground up. Let's try to be sensible about it." 

Now one can argue that Canada, with its bloodless, polite independence was a million times better than our blood and hard tack and starvation. And you'd be right... but Canada could only happen because the US had already happened - because the idea of national independence and democracy was seen as pretty much a foregone conclusion. So they got their peaceful, gradual independence, because England had seen that the North American colonies would probably all eventually go for freedom, and it was better to do it softly. I'm not saying that America caused Canada to become independent. I'm saying that the American revolution (and to a lesser extent, the French revolution) created a different political world than what had existed before.

The problem with Thedas is that we don't have a first revolution, from which the later peaceful changes can be prodded. Peaceful change often comes forward because the alternative... the fear... is of revolution. It is only when revolution or widespread unrest are seen as legitimate potential problems that peaceful change becomes a valuable and useful tool.

DA2 would have been a very different game (and a much more interesting one) if there had been any indication that the Chantry would ever change or loosen up or help mages in any way shape or form. But there was no indication that that would be the case, and little to no evidence in history that such a thing would happen. Without the threat of a revolt, or at the very least a thread of an open, widespread, vocal public movement, there is absolutely no reason for the status quo to change. And mages can't threaten a vocal public movment, because they literally are not allowed to be vocal or in public. Peaceful change within the status quo works when people can assemble and speak and teach... any mage who tries to do any of those things would be arrested or killed.

See this as the first revolution. The one that makes all future leaders fear social unrest. Until it is shown that people can break free and make powerful blows at the status quo, there is no reason for those in power to grant any concessions. This war may not benefit the mages directly. But at the very least, it will make the Chantry realize that there are reasons to prevent people from getting too angry, reasons to make changes so that nobody becomes upset enough to start a revolution again.

You need one, though. And this is that one.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 juin 2011 - 10:34 .

[Silfren]

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.

Ahem.  ANYBODY is capable of killing dozens.  If that's the criterion we're using, then everyone is dangerous, mage or no.  

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Deztyn

I think the situation could have been written much better than that, and convey that feeling much better. With actual pros and cons not only to each choice (they don't really exist in the game, it ends up with more or less  the same outcome), but to each faction as well. As it stands, I find the whole thing bordering on ridiculous and I have to ignore all of it if I am to think the choice was deep.

[KnightofPhoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
The problem with Thedas is that we don't have a first revolution, from which the later peaceful changes can be prodded.

Nor is the revolt of a tiny minority that everyone fears that kind of revolution. Not unless they manage to make many others join them and show that mages can have allies. Which I question their ability to do. 

Comparing it to the American revolution is faulty. It was a mass popular movement. Based on an agenda that concerns everyone in the US.

[Silfren]

Zanallen wrote...

Vit246 wrote...

People keep going on about how mages are like "nuclear weapons" that can just go off spontaneously at anytime anywhere for any reason when thats just a complete lie. Here's a conundrum. Mages have existed long before the Chantry was created. If mages were as dangerous as "nuclear weapons", how come the world of Thedas is still alive and thriving?

'Cause the mages were in complete control over Thedas before the chantry was created? Of course, if the Chantry's theory on the creation of Darkspawn is true, then there is some evidence for the mages almost destroying the world.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of mages being walking bombs, liable to go off at random at the slightest misstep.  A common argument is that mages are faced with an ever-present risk of demonic possession, or  could explode a person because they sneezed.  If this were so, then the nature of being a mage would be so inherently chaotic and unstable that it would not have been possible for a magocracy to have gained power in the first place, much less become such an empire as the Imperium once was.

[Harid]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Harid wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Deztyn wrote...
The choice matters to you. It's been said many times before, it boils down to which you think is more valuable; freedom for the few, or security for the many.

But see, that isn't the question I want to answer.

The question I want to answer is this: 

If a compromise is the best solution, how do we best reach compromise? Revolution or working with the status quo?

And the former seems obviously much more likely to lead to compromise than the latter. By a very very large margin.

When has revolution ever lead to compromise?

Maybe my history is failing me, but I can't think of one time.  Civil War, no compromise, south crushed, slavery abolished.  The south found new ways to subjugate, the north had no slavery.  John Brown, hung, no compromise, slavery stayed.  French Revolution, no compromise, nobles killed in the street.

If anything working the status quo is the only time it occurs.  Revolution always ends up bad for someone.  In this case, with no support for the mass majority of the populace, it's going to be mages that pay the price.

I guess we have different ideas about what constitutes compromise.

At the end of the Revolutionary war, we still had ties to England. They kept Canada. And some of the founding fathers were monarchists, who wanted America to have a king. When we hashed out this whole American business, it was made of compromise. And we did that by having a revolution, and then sitting everyone down and saying "Ok, we have a chance to build a system from the ground up. Let's try to be sensible about it." 

Now one can argue that Canada, with its bloodless, polite independence was a million times better than our blood and hard tack and starvation. And you'd be right... but Canada could only happen because the US had already happened - because the idea of national independence and democracy was seen as pretty much a foregone conclusion. So they got their peaceful, gradual independence, because England had seen that the North American colonies would probably all eventually go for freedom, and it was better to do it softly. I'm not saying that America caused Canada to become independent. I'm saying that the American revolution (and to a lesser extent, the French revolution) created a different political world than what had existed before.

The problem with Thedas is that we don't have a first revolution, from which the later peaceful changes can be prodded. Peaceful change often comes forward because the alternative... the fear... is of revolution. It is only when revolution or widespread unrest are seen as legitimate potential problems that peaceful change becomes a valuable and useful tool.

DA2 would have been a very different game (and a much more interesting one) if there had been any indication that the Chantry would ever change or loosen up or help mages in any way shape or form. But there was no indication that that would be the case, and little to no evidence in history that such a thing would happen. Without the threat of a revolt, or at the very least a thread of an open, widespread, vocal public movement, there is absolutely no reason for the status quo to change. And mages can't threaten a vocal public movment, because they literally are not allowed to be vocal or in public. Peaceful change within the status quo works when people can assemble and speak and teach... any mage who tries to do any of those things would be arrested or killed.

See this as the first revolution. The one that makes all future leaders fear social unrest. Until it is shown that people can break free and make powerful blows at the status quo, there is no reason for those in power to grant any concessions. This war may not benefit the mages directly. But at the very least, it will make the Chantry realize that there are reasons to prevent people from getting too angry, reasons to make changes so that nobody becomes upset enough to start a revolution again.

You need one, though. And this is that one.

The American Revolution was all around bad for England.  The compromise would not be what occured within the initial America, but would be between the US and England, as that was the two parties in the Revolution.  Canada's independance was directly because the empire was embarrassed by the US revolution.   That is bad for England again.

You are moving goalposts.  And are begining to sound a bit like an anarchist.

There are many times where no revolution has occured and comprimise occured.  The Civil Rights movement is a glaring one.

The only people mad are the mages.  They do not constitute a large enough part of the population for their revolution to not be utterly crushed unless something else occurs to distract every nation in Thedas at the same time which is well, contrived.  (And probably going to happen.)  They are only reinforcing exactly what the Chantry preaches to the common man.  Why would the common man, then, back these people?

Modifié par Harid, 16 juin 2011 - 10:49 .

[Silfren]

Harid wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Vit246 wrote...

People keep going on about how mages are like "nuclear weapons" that can just go off spontaneously at anytime anywhere for any reason when thats just a complete lie. Here's a conundrum. Mages have existed long before the Chantry was created. If mages were as dangerous as "nuclear weapons", how come the world of Thedas is still alive and thriving?

'Cause the mages were in complete control over Thedas before the chantry was created? Of course, if the Chantry's theory on the creation of Darkspawn is true, then there is some evidence for the mages almost destroying the world.

Because the mages enslaved and dominated everyone and. . .well, people didn't like it and have held them down since.

Again, this is an entirely separate issue from the claim that mages are walking bombs, liable to explode at any moment.  Please stop conflating the question of whether a mage will inevitably become a tyrannical jackhole with the question of whether a mage is inherently dangerous because of demonic temptation or lack of control over their abilities. 

[Harid]

Silfren wrote...

Harid wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Vit246 wrote...

People keep going on about how mages are like "nuclear weapons" that can just go off spontaneously at anytime anywhere for any reason when thats just a complete lie. Here's a conundrum. Mages have existed long before the Chantry was created. If mages were as dangerous as "nuclear weapons", how come the world of Thedas is still alive and thriving?

'Cause the mages were in complete control over Thedas before the chantry was created? Of course, if the Chantry's theory on the creation of Darkspawn is true, then there is some evidence for the mages almost destroying the world.

Because the mages enslaved and dominated everyone and. . .well, people didn't like it and have held them down since.

Again, this is an entirely separate issue from the claim that mages are walking bombs, liable to explode at any moment.  Please stop conflating the question of whether a mage will inevitably become a tyrannical jackhole with the question of whether a mage is inherently dangerous because of demonic temptation or lack of control over their abilities. 

DA:2 kinda proved the latter?

[Foolsfolly]

I think they did entirely because of how Act 3 unfolds.

You're forced to work with Meredith if you're pro-Mage (even as a mage) however if you're Pro-Templar you never once take orders from Orsino, or even have a conversation with the guy.

In that mission where you investigate the Mage/Templar group they always say you're working with the Templars regardless and there's no way to support them at all.

During final mission you have the choice between an ending that makes sense (the Templars) or one that has the most inexplicable betrayals ever (mages).

You always fight both Meredith and Orisino but in the Templar ending Orsino transforms as a last resort since the Templars (mostly Hawke) has pulverized the mages. Then Meredith is lead down the paranoid dark side by her stupid plot device (lazy writing that) and turns on Hawke.

When you're Pro-Mage you have the honor of seeing Orsino say he supported the serial killing mad man who killed your mother, then prove he's a blood mage (great way to prove Meredith and tell the player you backed the wrong horse), and then he uses his new found evil power to attack not the Templars, not Meredith, but the person who's risked their life to protect the Mages of Kirkwall.

And then Meredith attacks you.

Oh, and then there's the fact that despite a token line earlier in Act 3 that the Nobles support Pro-Mage Hawke it's Pro-Templar Hawke that becomes Viscount.

All in all, hell yes BioWare wants us to side with the Templars more than the Mages.