1008 réponses à ce sujet

[CulturalGeekGirl]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

Oh, I agree that they aren't the same. My argument was just based on the idea that you don't get peaceful social change movements until the idea of revolution is in the air. I don't think they're equal at all... except that they are the first true revolution in their respective worlds. They are a thing that forces the powers that be to see how very bad it could be if enough people get angry.

In some ways, I see this mage rebellion as the Stonewall Riots. They didn't change gay rights forever or anything, they didn't lead to the legalization of gay marriage, or the decriminalization of sodomy, or anything like that. They lead to people saying "Whoa whoa whoa, apparently we can't just kick these guys in the teeth for decades and not expect anything to come of it. Well, crap. There goes my Friday night.' 

And it lead to gay people saying "Hey, we don't have to just take this because we're a minority and will always be a minority. We can fight for our own stuff. We can join with the other revolutionary and civl rights and counterculture movements. This is the time for us to start pulling together." 

The question of the revolution is this: are there enough people who will see the enemy of their enemy as their friend, no matter how culturally unpopular that enemy is? Gays in the 60s were about as reviled as mages in Thedas are, for many of the same reasons (and some very not-similar-at-all-reasons) and yet nowadays, a mere half-century later, the gay rights movement is a valid force in the world, with many powerful allies.

I think the Chantry and Orlais have made enough enemies in the past thousand years that there's a decent chance that all their enemies will see this as a time of weakness, and strike. Maybe as independed, uncoordinated forces, and maybe together. The question isn't "Is there a mage out there capable of coordinating the wa?." the question is "is there an enemy of the current chantry and Orlais who is capable of coordinating this war?" 

And I'm pretty sure that we'll get to determine whether or not such a person exists in DA3.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 juin 2011 - 10:57 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I think the Chantry and Orlais have made enough enemies in the past thousand years that there's a decent chance that all their enemies will see this as a time of weakness, and strike. Maybe as independed, uncoordinated forces, and maybe together. The question isn't "Is there a mage out there capable of coordinating the wa?." the question is "is there an enemy of the current chantry and Orlais who is capable of coordinating this war?" 

First, I highly doubt the riots cause thousands of deaths or had protestors turn into abominations, resort to blood magic or what not. And I doubt they openly targetted symbolic buildings to ****** everyone off.

Second, if mage revolts happen everywhere in Thedas, which apparently they did, and if they cause untold destruction everywhere, which is likely to happen, then this would not longer be something against Orlais. All Thedasian countries will be affected, or at least the ones hosting circles, which is about every major country in the continent.

And your question is an excellent one. One that should have been asked before the revolt.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 juin 2011 - 11:05 .

[Persephone]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

Oh, I agree that they aren't the same. My argument was just based on the idea that you don't get peaceful social change movements until the idea of revolution is in the air. I don't think they're equal at all... except that they are the first true revolution in their respective worlds. They are a thing that forces the powers that be to see how very bad it could be if enough people get angry.

In some ways, I see this mage rebellion as the Stonewall Riots. They didn't change gay rights forever or anything, they didn't lead to the legalization of gay marriage, or the decriminalization of sodomy, or anything like that. They lead to people saying "Whoa whoa whoa, apparently we can't just kick these guys in the teeth for decades and not expect anything to come of it. Well, crap. There goes my Friday night.' 

And it lead to gay people saying "Hey, we don't have to just take this because we're a minority and will always be a minority. We can fight for our own stuff. We can join with the other revolutionary and civl rights and counterculture movements. This is the time for us to start pulling together." 

The question of the revolution is this: are there enough people who will see the enemy of their enemy as their friend, no matter how culturally unpopular that enemy is? Gays in the 60s were about as reviled as mages in Thedas are, for many of the same reasons (and some very not-similar-at-all-reasons) and yet nowadays, a mere half-century later, the gay rights movement is a valid force in the world, with many powerful allies.

I think the Chantry and Orlais have made enough enemies in the past thousand years that there's a decent chance that all their enemies will see this as a time of weakness, and strike. Maybe as independed, uncoordinated forces, and maybe together. The question isn't "Is there a mage out there capable of coordinating the wa?." the question is "is there an enemy of the current chantry and Orlais who is capable of coordinating this war?" 

And I'm pretty sure that we'll get to determine whether or not such a person exists in DA3.

Excellent points, yup. Well said. Now I want DAIII even more.

[tmp7704]

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?

It's not that much of a conundrum -- consider for example the impact of "Black Death" on our own populations in the medieval ages. Yet, our own world is still alive and thriving... does it mean the danger of the plague is being overstated?

People rarely realize just how much it takes to actually exterminate all life on even single continent.

[Deztyn]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ 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.

Oh, I absolutely agree that the whole thing could have been written better. But whatever complaints you can make about the story (and there are many) the reasons to support the templar ending are there.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Harid wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Harid wrote...

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?

Ahhh... I see the confusion. When I said we need to work out a compromise, I meant a compromise between complete unrestrained mage freedom and the current system of suffocating control. Whether or not the Chantry comes out of this well is of absolutely no concern to me. I could care less if we end up with a system where non-chantry folks with Templar abilities (like Alistair or my Hawke) are the ones watching over the mages, and the Chantry itself is licking its wounds in the corner.

You see the current system as the only alternative to Tevinter, or to mages running around loose and wild. I think that the only way the mages can win this War is to gather some support among non-mage allies... and I think that those non-mage allies can probably work out a system that works for everyone in the aftermath. Especially if everyone's favorite ex-Templar-in-training-mage-sympathetic-King is involved.

And if you think the only people who are mad at the way society works right now are the mages, well, you've basically not been paying attention. Ferelden is mad at the Chantry for supporting bloody Orlais's constant invasions. Elves are mad at the Chantry because it demands that they discard their gods and live either in ghettos or on the run constantly. The Rivaini are probably pretty pissed at the Chantry for going into their country and murdering all the followers of the Qun there: man, woman or child.

I'm not certain where the Dwarves fall. That will be interesting to see.

Can you name many times where widespread social change happened without bloodshed prior to the Revolutionary War? Because that's what I'm arguing. You need to get the idea that the people, gathering together and rising up, can overpower their oppressors. You just need that IDEA to exist.

After it exists, you can get your peaceful change.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Deztyn wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ 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.

Oh, I absolutely agree that the whole thing could have been written better. But whatever complaints you can make about the story (and there are many) the reasons to support the templar ending are there.

Well of course there are. They would have to try pretty hard to make a situation where there is absolutely no reason to pick a one of 2 options. I am not saying they are that bad. 

[Harid]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I think the Chantry and Orlais have made enough enemies in the past thousand years that there's a decent chance that all their enemies will see this as a time of weakness, and strike. Maybe as independed, uncoordinated forces, and maybe together. The question isn't "Is there a mage out there capable of coordinating the wa?." the question is "is there an enemy of the current chantry and Orlais who is capable of coordinating this war?" 

And I'm pretty sure that we'll get to determine whether or not such a person exists in DA3.

I don't think the correlation to the Stonewall riots is a wise choice, given how they don't go down in similar was given the huge differences between mages and homosexuals, the Stonewall Riots didn't have abominations, and blood Magic and Templars and the fear of the people aren't based on the same grounds.

There's living proof to fear the unfettered unchaining of mages called the Tevinter Imperium.  There was no gay country that gave people reason to fear gays, it's was more the fear of the unknown.

And lastly, you generally want to shore up your leadership pre revolution, as it aids in making sure said revolution is successful.  Mages haven't done this, so it's not likely they will succeed.

I like comparing mages to the whole comic mutant registration thing because the correlation works better; if you aren't a mage, you'd be an idiot not to want mages constrained, and if you are a mage, yeah, you'd want freedom and damn everyone else.

We aren't really getting that, though. . .

[Foolsfolly]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I think the Chantry and Orlais have made enough enemies in the past thousand years that there's a decent chance that all their enemies will see this as a time of weakness, and strike. Maybe as independed, uncoordinated forces, and maybe together. The question isn't "Is there a mage out there capable of coordinating the wa?." the question is "is there an enemy of the current chantry and Orlais who is capable of coordinating this war?" 

First, I highly doubt the riots cause thousands of deaths or had protestors turn into abominations, resort to blood magic or what not. And I doubt they openly targetted symbolic buildings to ****** everyone off.

Second, if mage revolts happen everywhere in Thedas, which apparently they did, and if they cause untold destruction everywhere, which is likely to happen, then this would not longer be something against Orlais. All Thedasian countries will be affected, or at least the ones hosting circles, which is about every major country in the continent.

And your question is an excellent one. One that should have been asked before the revolt.

Exactly what KoP said.

I hate the Mage revolt plot line entirely because they have no leadership, no plan, no anything. It's more in line with a riot than a revolution. Just mindless combat and murder....and abominations and civilian deaths. Which apparently spread all around Thedas somehow.

...somehow. I have no idea how.

It wasn't the story BioWare wanted to tell. They wanted to spend 90% of the game telling completely unrelated things.

[Harid]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Ahhh... I see the confusion. When I said we need to work out a compromise, I meant a compromise between complete unrestrained mage freedom and the current system of suffocating control. Whether or not the Chantry comes out of this well is of absolutely no concern to me. I could care less if we end up with a system where non-chantry folks with Templar abilities (like Alistair or my Hawke) are the ones watching over the mages, and the Chantry itself is licking its wounds in the corner.

You see the current system as the only alternative to Tevinter, or to mages running around loose and wild. I think that the only way the mages can win this War is to gather some support among non-mage allies... and I think that those non-mage allies can probably work out a system that works for everyone in the aftermath. Especially if everyone's favorite ex-Templar-in-training-mage-sympathetic-King is involved.

And if you think the only people who are mad at the way society works right now are the mages, well, you've basically not been paying attention. Ferelden is mad at the Chantry for supporting bloody Orlais's constant invasions. Elves are mad at the Chantry because it demands that they discard their gods and live either in ghettos or on the run constantly. The Rivaini are probably pretty pissed at the Chantry for going into their country and murdering all the followers of the Qun there: man, woman or child.

I'm not certain where the Dwarves fall. That will be interesting to see.

Can you name many times where widespread social change happened without bloodshed prior to the Revolutionary War? Because that's what I'm arguing. You need to get the idea that the people, gathering together and rising up, can overpower their oppressors. You just need that IDEA to exist.

After it exists, you can get your peaceful change.

No such compromise is being chartered by mages.  They just want their freedom, and damn everyone else, which is why their revolution will fail.  You can't go for your freedom like this without taking into account the feeling of the majority.  If you don't have thier support, you will pay the price when you are crushed by the people who they do support, i.e. the chantry.

I've said this since DA:O.  I get that the mages want freedom, but they aren't chartering any ideas on who is gonna protect the people from a crazed Abomination setting up something like the Blackmarsh or who's gonna stop a cabal of mages from trying to create a new Imperium.  Without drafting those ideas, THEN revolting, the common man would have to be a damned fool to back mages, and I'd have to be a damned fool to think mages are going to succeed at this fruitless endeavor.

I've said from jump mages need a talker to get people to understand, a talker that does not confirm the feelings people have for mages at this current time.  They have no one doing that at this current time.

Modifié par Harid, 16 juin 2011 - 11:20 .

[TJPags]

Holy crap - I'd think a thread like this wouldn't have this kind of action anymore.

Boy was I wrong.

Anyway . . carry on.

[Furtled]

Foolsfolly wrote...
I hate the Mage revolt plot line entirely because they have no leadership, no plan, no anything. It's more in line with a riot than a revolution. Just mindless combat and murder....and abominations and civilian deaths. Which apparently spread all around Thedas somehow.

I see it as something similar to Rosa Parkes or the Soweto and Brixton riots, or even the Miners strikes in the UK if you want one with a losing side. It's a trigger for people to see things differently. As Varric says (and I'm paraphrasing here) the events in Kirkwall (if Hawke sides with the mages, I can't remember what he says if you side with the templars) show that the templars can be beaten, it gives the other circles hope, inspires them because they realise they do have power to force change. It's much like Fenris realising that he doesn't have to be a slave due to Hawke showing their support, so instead of giving up and killing the people who've sheltered him (as he did before) he fights.

Leadership and plans come after.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Harid wrote...
No such compromise is being chartered by mages.  They just want their freedom, and damn everyone else, which is why their revolution will fail.  You can't go for your freedom like this without taking into account the feeling of the majority.  If you don't have thier support, you will pay the price when you are crushed by the people who they do support, i.e. the chantry.

Some mage genius might show up and make sense of the situation, but I doubt it's possible.

I agree, I am on the side that says that the revolution is very likely to fail miserably, unless some extra-ordinary event happens (Flemeth the :big change", Qunari invasion..etc), which is very likely.
Hopefully it won't be the same old cliche of enemies allyign to fight a bigger enemy, I am tired of that.

[Harid]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Harid wrote...
No such compromise is being chartered by mages.  They just want their freedom, and damn everyone else, which is why their revolution will fail.  You can't go for your freedom like this without taking into account the feeling of the majority.  If you don't have thier support, you will pay the price when you are crushed by the people who they do support, i.e. the chantry.

Some mage genius might show up and make sense of the situation, but I doubt it's possible.

I agree, I am on the side that says that the revolution is very likely to fail miserably, unless some extra-ordinary event happens (Flemeth the :big change", Qunari invasion..etc), which is very likely.
Hopefully it won't be the same old cliche of enemies allyign to fight a bigger enemy, I am tired of that.

We agree!  I said something similar earlier.

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Harid wrote...
No such compromise is being chartered by mages.  They just want their freedom, and damn everyone else, which is why their revolution will fail.  You can't go for your freedom like this without taking into account the feeling of the majority.  If you don't have thier support, you will pay the price when you are crushed by the people who they do support, i.e. the chantry.

Some mage genius might show up and make sense of the situation, but I doubt it's possible.

I agree, I am on the side that says that the revolution is very likely to fail miserably, unless some extra-ordinary event happens (Flemeth the :big change", Qunari invasion..etc), which is very likely.
Hopefully it won't be the same old cliche of enemies allyign to fight a bigger enemy, I am tired of that.

Yeah the only way I'd end up liking it was if the bigger enemy was the Reapers and Shepard came out of nowhere and just PWND everyone.  

[Harid]

I agree with CGG when she says that the idea of revolution has to be in the air.

But simultaneously, you need a guy to humanize you. A guy the common man can follow. A guy that regular people say, "Hey, that guys not like the stereotypical mage at all, he completely disproves everything you say." 

Mages don't got that guy.

Modifié par Harid, 16 juin 2011 - 11:40 .

[Deztyn]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Well of course there are. They would have to try pretty hard to make a situation where there is absolutely no reason to pick a one of 2 options. I am not saying they are that bad. 

Ah. Well your ... less than positive view of DA2 coupled with the comment about siding with Meredith made me think you were questioning the entire pro-templar ending. If I misunderstood I apologize.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Harid wrote...

I agree with CGG when she says that the idea of revolution has to be in the air.

But simultaneously, you need a guy to humanize you. A guy the common man can follow. A guy that regular people say, "Hey, that guys not like the stereotypical mage at all, he completely disproves everything you say."

Mages don't got that guy.

A Saskia so to speak. Which is why the Lodge of Sorceresses >>> DA mages.

That person doens't have to be a mage. It would in fact be preferrable if it's a "normal" charismatic human, or a statesman whose country is strong enough to coordinate a large scale war that is not solely defensive (which imo excludes both Anora and Alistair at the moment).

[KnightofPhoenix]

Deztyn wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Well of course there are. They would have to try pretty hard to make a situation where there is absolutely no reason to pick a one of 2 options. I am not saying they are that bad. 

Ah. Well your ... less than positive view of DA2 coupled with the comment about siding with Meredith made me think you were questioning the entire pro-templar ending. If I misunderstood I apologize.

No apologies needed. I was not and if I am to play the game again with a non-mage, which I doubt will happen anytime soon, I'll most probably side with the Templars, though still think Meredith is an imbecile.

I am questioning the entire ending, not any one choice

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Harid wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Ahhh... I see the confusion. When I said we need to work out a compromise, I meant a compromise between complete unrestrained mage freedom and the current system of suffocating control.

After it exists, you can get your peaceful change.

No such compromise is being chartered by mages.  They just want their freedom, and damn everyone else, which is why their revolution will fail.  You can't go for your freedom like this without taking into account the feeling of the majority.  If you don't have thier support, you will pay the price when you are crushed by the people who they do support, i.e. the chantry.

I've said this since DA:O.  I get that the mages want freedom, but they aren't chartering any ideas on who is gonna protect the people from a crazed Abomination setting up something like the Blackmarsh or who's gonna start a cabal of mages from trying to create a new Imperium.  Without drafting those ideas, THEN revolting, the common man would have to be a damned fool to back mages, and I'd have to be a damned fool to think mages are going to succeed at this fruitless endeavor.

I've said from jump mages need a talker to get people to understand, a talker that does not confirm the feelings people have for mages at this current time.  They have no one doing that at this current time.

And here is where we get the problem of the game being rushed and there not being enough time for writing. A lot of this stuff is buried in the codex.

The majority of mages right now are a coalition between the Aequitarians (reform within the Chantry/Circle system) and the Loyalists (no reform necessary, do what the Chantry says). This implies that together, those two factions comprise 50%+ of mages, but that neither one of those factions has a majority on their own. Now, based on the mages we've talked to in the game, I'm going to make some guesses as to the percentages.

25% loyalists, 35% Aequitarians, 25% LIbertarians (inc 5% Resolutionists), 5% Isolationists, 10% Lucrosians.

These are just guesses, but they're logical ones withing the limits of what we've been told. Now, the thing is, I believe that the majority of mages right now are Aequitarians, and the point of the Kirkwall Revolt was to get the Aequitarians to realize that they have to defend themselves against the Templars. That things have swung a bit too far in the Templar's favor, and that breaking free, at least for now, is really necessary.

Now, I don't think that the majority of Aequitarians are going to just discard their belief that the circle is useful after this revolt is over. I think that there will be a big internal struggle between the Aequitarian/Libertarian coalition that this revolution seems to have created. So yes, I think the mages will try to broker compromise. Anders wasn't trying to broker a neat compromise, but he's bloody Anders. 

I see this playing out differently than everyone else. Most mage towers don't seem to be in the middle of cities, they seem to be out in the middle of nowhere. So rather than causing mass bloodshed, I see the fighting being rather more contained, with mages either taking control of the circle towers themselves and demanding emmissaries be set in, to small groups of mages fleeing and setting up camps elsewhere. I see no reason why the fighting should cover every inch of ground in Thedas, or involve normal people very often. Attacks on Templar barracks, yest, but I don't think that chantry bombs are going to become a major part of this. Indeed, the only reason the one that happened happened was because it was uniquely strategic, in a way I don't think any future ones will be.

I wish we were getting our Wardens back for DA3, not because I wub my Warden so much, but because she could sort this out so damn easily it's ridiculous. She has that whole Hero Aura, and a history of accomplishing things, and a voice that can be heard loudly, that speaks for the rights of elves and mages, and the independence of Ferelden.

This is a world that needs protagonists, and despite what people say, Anders wasn't one. But he's met both Hawke and the Warden, so he has faith that such people are out there.

Six characters in search of an author. Two characters in search of a country song. A story in search of a protagonist.

[Harid]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Harid wrote...

I agree with CGG when she says that the idea of revolution has to be in the air.

But simultaneously, you need a guy to humanize you. A guy the common man can follow. A guy that regular people say, "Hey, that guys not like the stereotypical mage at all, he completely disproves everything you say."

Mages don't got that guy.

A Saskia so to speak. Which is why the Lodge of Sorceresses >>> DA mages.

That person doens't have to be a mage. It would in fact be preferrable if it's a "normal" charismatic human, or a statesman whose country is strong enough to coordinate a large scale war that is not solely defensive (which imo excludes both Anora and Alistair at the moment).

My computer can't play The Witcher II.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Harid wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Harid wrote...

I agree with CGG when she says that the idea of revolution has to be in the air.

But simultaneously, you need a guy to humanize you. A guy the common man can follow. A guy that regular people say, "Hey, that guys not like the stereotypical mage at all, he completely disproves everything you say."

Mages don't got that guy.

A Saskia so to speak. Which is why the Lodge of Sorceresses >>> DA mages.

That person doens't have to be a mage. It would in fact be preferrable if it's a "normal" charismatic human, or a statesman whose country is strong enough to coordinate a large scale war that is not solely defensive (which imo excludes both Anora and Alistair at the moment).

My computer can't play The Witcher II.

I still argue that the reason such a person can't be set up is because they're going to be the DA3 protagonist, and thus must be shape-able by the player. We can't know too much about them yet.

This is one of those narrative causality things. (P.S. KoP - Read Discworld!) 

[Ianamus]

I wish that we could have had a Wynne-like charcter in DA:2- a mage who supports the circle as a place of safety and tutoring, who dosent deal with blood magic or demons, but believes that the templars are too strict.
Our mages were Merrill, who's a nice enough person but deals with Demons, made some serious mistakes and is a Dalish, so has nothing to do with the circle, and Anders, who blew up the chantry- killing loads of innocents.

In DA:O even Morrigan, who was cynical and slightly antagonistic still helped you defeat the blight, refused to deal with Demons, and wasn't so much "evil" as "the blight is more important than helping these random people"

There were far more blood mages than Templars who wanted to make all mages tranquil, and we were told that Meredith did not approve of this- while the first enchanter worked with blood mages all along, and the one who turned the player charcters mother into a walking corpse no less!
It's not like you also find your father and he's tranquil, and it turns out Meredith approved of it.

It really says something when the only well rounded mage in the entire game are the player charcter (potentially) and Bethany. Even my mage Hawke had to agree that Fenris was right: almost every mage either used blood magic initially, or resorted to it later.

I do think they pushed too hard when making us want to side with the templars.

Modifié par EJ107, 16 juin 2011 - 11:56 .

[Foolsfolly]

Furtled wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...
I hate the Mage revolt plot line entirely because they have no leadership, no plan, no anything. It's more in line with a riot than a revolution. Just mindless combat and murder....and abominations and civilian deaths. Which apparently spread all around Thedas somehow.

I see it as something similar to Rosa Parkes or the Soweto and Brixton riots, or even the Miners strikes in the UK if you want one with a losing side. It's a trigger for people to see things differently. As Varric says (and I'm paraphrasing here) the events in Kirkwall (if Hawke sides with the mages, I can't remember what he says if you side with the templars) show that the templars can be beaten, it gives the other circles hope, inspires them because they realise they do have power to force change. It's much like Fenris realising that he doesn't have to be a slave due to Hawke showing their support, so instead of giving up and killing the people who've sheltered him (as he did before) he fights.

Leadership and plans come after.

Rosa Parkes I know so I'll answer to that. The Civil Rights movement predated Rosa's actions. In fact, the Civil Right's leadership used Rosa's actions as a rallying cry.

There's no Mage leadership.