1008 réponses à ce sujet

[Deztyn]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux,

I roleplay. I try to do everything I can in playthroughs. As a player, I still think dealing with demons is incredibly stupid and carries more risk than reward.

You know that means so many different things for so many different players. And anyone who's been on this site for two days knows there's a debate in saying what's a roleplaying game and what isn't.

...but I still don't know what that term means to me.

Do I imagine myself as the character? Sometimes. Do I start a completely different and unique character and play with that voice...sometimes. Not often, if I want to write a story with a character in my mind...well then using a story someone else wrote and dialogue someone else wrote for me doesn't seem to be the same. I can come up with backstory and how this character will react...but I have no freedom to develop those things and frankly, I'd rather just write a story than do that. But I've done it before.

As a long time fanficcer I'm quite comfortable playing with someone else's characters. Trying to imagine what certain characters will do in situations while remaining as faithful as possible to their original characterization is a challenge I find entertaining. So I never really imagine myself as Hawke or the Warden, exactly, but I see myself as guiding the character through events. A first playthrough I usually make up the character as I go along. After that I try to start out with a general idea for the type of character I'm going to play, and make decisions accordingly.

It's easiest with Shepard since I'm so familiar with all her dialogue and the plot points. I know from character creation what type of person a Shepard is and what big choices she's likely to make and that informs all the little choices I make as I go along. I never go pure renegade or pure paragon. The last full playthrough I did was a ruthless colonist Shepard who hates batarians and mistrusts aliens in general, utterly unforgiving to her enemies but never anything but compassionate to (deserving) humans. Ended up with full renegade, and about half paragon. A character. Not just whatever I feel like as the player.

And then there's the metagaming aspect of it all. I'm a rather bad metagamer. If I know there's more experience in jumping out of the Mako and killing everything on foot (after weakening the tougher enemies, of course) well that's what I do. Would the character do that? Of bleeding course not! Nor would they just happen to know where the best items are (or in ME2 my personal preferred order of quests). Nor would they happen to know where the point of no return was, or that if they delayed hitting that point that nothing would change despite the bad guys still being out there.

I admit when it comes to combat I metagame a bit (You have to finish off those threshers on foot!), but not when it comes to the characters abilities. I'll never have blood magic on a pious character, for instance. I'll never give a soldier singularity or reave as a bonus power (Even though they're awesome.) I try to do missions in the order I think the character would. I'm quite comfortable with guiding a character to failure. Or having a suboptimal build.

And with my first Warden (Human Noble Rogue with a high cunning build) I totally justified my save scumming in conversations for the best possible approval (or least amount of disapproval) as my noble being just that good at reading and manipulating people. So it sort of worked out. Kind of.

Recruiting Zev is the only spot in the game where I consistently metagame. I <3 him, so I have to recruit him even if I can only really imagine two of my wardens doing it.

And when it completely comes down to it....the game I roleplayed the most on was Age of Empires 1 and 2 on the PC way back in the 90s. I'd get home from school, load up the game and pretend I was a king building an army and fighting other kings throughout the ages. Sometimes I was a time traveler, othertimes an immortal.

And AoE really doesn't lend anything to roleplaying. I blame my young age at the time and that I was more imaginative than I am now...apparently...kinda sad about that.

Imagination is a wonderful thing, isn't it? When I was a kid I could play something like Duck Hunt and  imagine that I was a master sharpshooter.

....Erm, about the topic...

I feel the game's ending works better logically as a Templar supporter rather than a Mage supporter. From things I've gathered in postings on these forums and in interviews...I think that wasn't supposed to be the case but perhaps they just didn't have time to flesh out the Mage Act 3 like they'd have liked to. I mean it's 3 missions long, is it inconceivible that they meant to have 3 Templar missions and 3 completely different Mage missions?

Maybe I'm overplaying the 'this game reeks of rushed' card here.

You're not alone, I  think it works best as pro-templar mage. Everything in the ending sequence makes more sense that way. Why Meredith would try to force the Champion to her side (and where she gets the authority to do so.) Why Meredith would turn against a Hawke who had supported her all along. Why Cullen would be comfortable arresting a champion who had been so helpful, and why he would refuse to kill the Champion.

The only thing that feels out of place is Hawke becoming Viscount afterward. But then it opens up some interesting possibilities. I like to imagine a pro-templar mage Hawke could actually do more to create lasting change for mages than a pro-mage Hawke.

[Deztyn]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Deztyn wrote...
CulturalGeekGirl,

What motives do any of the other countries have to rise up against the Chantry? You mentioned groups waiting to bring them down, but aside from the Qunari and Tevinter I'm drawing a blank on any groups with sufficient power that want to do anything of the sort. No offense, but it seems like you're projecting your own beliefs onto the gameworld.

Well it's mostly that the King of Ferelden was like "Hey, I'm going to do thing X Ok?" And the Chantry was like "Screw your sovereign nation, we're in charge here."

The King (Or Queen) of Fereldan (If you chose that boon.) overstepped his (or her) authority in a matter concerning mages. Not any other aspect of ruling his country. The Chantry's authority here is well known and accepted around Thedas. It's not much different than a modern day country having to obey international law.

Same thing for Kirkwall "Hey, we think that lady might be kind of crazy, maybe we could get a new Knight Commander?" "Screw your soverignity, the KC is in charge now that your Viscount is dead, and she'll block your champion from becoming the new Vicount, while we're at it."

Mage side only. Templar side the nobles agree with Meredith (and the Champion.) about the danger of mages. And Hawke of course becomes Viscount. You're also confusing a dislike of the templar order with a dislike of the Chantry. Meredith was hated. Elthina was loved. Kirkwall also has no standing army, and given the recent magical terrorism is the absolute last place you'd be able to drum up a lot of support for a mage rebellion. (Especially since the Chantry is right in the middle of Hightown, where the nobles live.)

They also invaded Rivain and killed a whole bunch of innocent people there.

Uh. When?

Are you talking about the attempt to purge the human followers of the Qun (Who were supposed to have left after the Llomerryn Accords)? That wasn't an invasion, it was an internal conflict.

So basically, a lot of governments at the very least have reason to not want the Chantry's will to supercede theirs anymore.

Each of these situations depends on the playthrough. Except for Rivain, which was the local Chantry acting with support from the people of Rivain.

Pretty much for the past thousand years they've just been shouting "What? What are YOU gonna do about it? HA!" at random countries, and Orlais has been invading the heck out of all of its neighbors, using the fact that they are the Seat of the Divine as an excuse.

The Dales. And. . . ?

Are you seriously complaining about the Marches on Tevinter and the Qunari?

Orlais occuppied Navarra after a Blight, but that had little to do with being the seat of the divine. Neither do it's other occupations. It's quite possible to hate Orlais but still believe in the Chantry's teachings.

My preferred way to fix everything in Ferelden is to get someone who is sane and rational made Divine. I'd rather reform Andrasteism than crush it. I'd far prefer an Andrasteism that is closer to its original roots, especially if it turns out that Andraste was, you know, a mage, as we're lead to suspect when we find the Ashes. More than anything, I'd like to see the whole church change because of this, stop preaching that mages are Maker-cursed, restore the parts of history they've expurgated, stop oppressing the elves and spreading propaganda about the Dalish.

Nearly every reference to the mages being cursed that I can remember is about their alarming ability to become possessed by a demon and go on a rampage. I don't think that's something mages should ever stop hearing about.

The Chantry doesn't oppress the elves. The people of Thedas in general are responsible for that. That's not something you can fix just by changing the Chantry structure, you have to actively change the way the common man thinks.

I'd also like a pony.

No.

If we want to stop mages from being raped and tortured without any way to prevent it, we have to either reform Andrasteism or have a strong, free country where the Chantry cannot override the will of the King. I'd be happy with either of those, but I'd say the latter is significantly easier to accomplish. Not that I wouldn't choose the former first, if I had the opportunity. I would, in a heartbeat. There's nothing I'd rather see than an Andrasteism that preaches the Maker's love rather than his hate.

Oh, joy. The rape card again. You do realize that it's not legal to rape mages? That it's just a few sadists lucky enough to get into a position of power and take advantage of it? That mages do have a method of seeking redress? Specifically, it's the job of the First Enchanter to deal with templars on behalf of his mages.

Modifié par Deztyn, 17 juin 2011 - 08:26 .

[ddv.rsa]

If we want to stop mages from being raped and tortured without any way to prevent it, we have to either reform Andrasteism or have a strong, free country where the Chantry cannot override the will of the King.

Sometimes people abuse their authority and commit crimes like rape. This can happen anywhere and doesn't point to a flaw in the structure of the Chantry. At least not any more than Vaughn's raping of Shianni points to a flaw in the government of Ferelden.

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

They are not loyal to the Divine anymore, they rebelled. They are loyal to their duty of defending humanity against magic. Most Templars have never had to annul a Circle either, yet they do that efficiently. This is simply an annulment on a large scale so to speak. And why on sweet mother earth would any of those countries you name accept the renegade mages? THat would bring hell down upon themselves, with precious little to gain. The Chasind would for that matter never accept any more mages than their own Shamans. And the Tevinter are unlikely to accept a lot of mages either, since they would disrupt the power balance too much. Rivain likewise, wouldn't accept renegade mages. They like their SEERS, any mage is not a seer to the Rivaini, and they probably feel much the same as the rest of Thedas about apostates. Which leaves Ferelden and the Dalish. The Dalish would never accept a human mage, and I doubt they accept any and all Elven mage with open arms either. Add to that the difficulty tracking them down presents, and they are mostly a pipe dream to any Elven mage. Ferelden have shown that they are willing to harbor a few apostates, but I doubt that they would harbor all the renegade mages, since that would be to invite a political ****storm to tear Ferelden apart.

And the Templars have been unable to exterminate the Dalish because the Dalish have kept on the move constantly. The Templars could probably destroy the Dalish without much trouble if they were willing to expend the resources required to track them down.

You're making a lot of "they would never!" statements without bothering to back up any of your claims.

On what grounds do you think the Rivaini people would not accept renegade mages?  You stated it as an absolute fact, rather than merely your opinion, so I assume you do have some actual evidence...?  Same goes for the rest.

[Silfren]

Deztyn wrote...

Oh, joy. The rape card again. You do realize that it's not legal to rape mages? That it's just a few sadists lucky enough to get into a position of power and take advantage of it? That mages do have a method of seeking redress? Specifically, it's the job of the First Enchanter to deal with templars on behalf of his mages.

.....The "rape card?"  Seriously?  Wow.

You do realize that the point is that whether or not it's officially legal to rape the mages is completely beside the point?  Just like it's not exactly legal to rape anyone in the real world, and yet rapists get away with it ALL the time because as crimes go it's the one least often taken seriously?  

Getting away from real world issues, the fact of the matter is that the Chantry system creates an environment where templars can do as they like, legality be damned.  If a mage is made to fear being executed or made Tranquil if they dare try to seek justice, what recourse do they have? 

In a place like the Ferelden Circle, where it appears that the Knight Commander is a just man, templars are not permitted to behave as if they are above the law.  In this kind of situation, mages are not going to feel powerless, because they will generally be able to trust that any complaints they have will be heard.  In this scenario, the First Enchanter has a solid working relationship with the Knight Commander.

In a Circle like the one in the Gallows of Kirkwall, however, the First Enchanter does not have a joint working relationship with the Knight Commander.  Instead, de factor the Knight Commander behaves as if the First Enchanter is just another mage, rather than her joint collaborator in the Circle's dealings.  Between that, and the Knight Commander's inherent contempt for mages, you have an environment where no mage is going to feel safe going to the First Enchanter to field complaints about abuse.  Moreover, even if they did, there is no real reason to believe, based on anything we see in game, that the First Enchanter could actually do anything about it, as that would require a Knight Commander who was actually interested in making her templars attend to the law and not permitting them to regard mages as a class of people specially set aside to be templar playthings for whom pesky laws against abuse don't apply.

tl;dr it's a strawman to talk about rape and other abuses not being legal when the fact of their legality is irrelevant.

[Ryzaki]

Fine KoP I stand corrected

Modifié par Ryzaki, 17 juin 2011 - 09:31 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

ddv.rsa wrote...

If we want to stop mages from being raped and tortured without any way to prevent it, we have to either reform Andrasteism or have a strong, free country where the Chantry cannot override the will of the King.

Sometimes people abuse their authority and commit crimes like rape. This can happen anywhere and doesn't point to a flaw in the structure of the Chantry. At least not any more than Vaughn's raping of Shianni points to a flaw in the government of Ferelden.

Actually it does.

But yes, that flaw is not monopolized by any one institution. All of them are flawed. Some however are less flawed than others.  And improvement is possible.

[Giggles_Manically]

No matter the system that is created there will be abuses inherent in it.

As the peasant in Quest for the Holy Grail once said:
"Come see the violence inherent in the system!"

[Sherbet Lemon]

Deztyn wrote...

If we want to stop mages from being raped and tortured without any way to prevent it, we have to either reform Andrasteism or have a strong, free country where the Chantry cannot override the will of the King. I'd be happy with either of those, but I'd say the latter is significantly easier to accomplish. Not that I wouldn't choose the former first, if I had the opportunity. I would, in a heartbeat. There's nothing I'd rather see than an Andrasteism that preaches the Maker's love rather than his hate.

Oh, joy. The rape card again. You do realize that it's not legal to rape mages? That it's just a few sadists lucky enough to get into a position of power and take advantage of it? That mages do have a method of seeking redress? Specifically, it's the job of the First Enchanter to deal with templars on behalf of his mages.

It's not about pulling out the "rape card" which is dismissive and condescending in ways I that I don't think is productive to the conversation.  What you're missing is the inevitablity of the situation.  It's not just a few sadists, it is the means of control, it is the power and ability of one group to establish the dynamic.  You have a group of individuals with a mostly unilateral control over another group.  The other has no recourse to fight back.  The first Enchanter is still subject to that same authority as he only has as much control as the Knight Commander allows him. 

I'm not quite sure how much Social Dominance Theory works in a Dragon Age setting, but the inherent subjugation of mages establishes and ensures that the of the agents of control can and do set the how much power and influence the oppressed will have.  There will be abuse because the abusers hold the keys and establish the dynamics.  (See right of annulment) 

EDIT: Or is it Rite of annulment?  I can never remember...sorry...

Modifié par Village Idiot, 17 juin 2011 - 09:29 .

[Ryzaki]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

No matter the system that is created there will be abuses inherent in it.

As the peasant in Quest for the Holy Grail once said:
"Come see the violence inherent in the system!"

Sadly true.

That was funny though. XD 

[The Baconer]

tmp7704 wrote...

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.

Hmm, yes, I see it was too far-fetched to compare the two individuals by these standards. Perhaps a better comparison would be your 'average' warrior/mage against an 'average' soldier, which would be no contest. Against a veteran like I described in the first example the warrior/mage would certainly be outmatched in close combat, but he still has tools at his disposal that could make it at least even, if not give him an upper hand. And, of course, if the warrior/mage in question knew blood magic, it would be no contest.

[ddv.rsa]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
 And improvement is possible.

Certainly, the Chantry is far from perfect. But I do believe a centralised Chantry that controls the Circles is ultimately for the best.

Modifié par ddv.rsa, 17 juin 2011 - 09:52 .

[Deztyn]

It's a strawman to keep harping on rape as a reason to tear down the Chantry when it's not supported, approved, or allowed by the Chantry. If a teacher rapes a student you arrest the teacher and fire or charge anyone who may have known about it. You don't completely tear down the entire school system.

I also find it horribly offensive to the point of rage inducing to continually see posters imply (or state outright) that supporting the Circles is supporting rape.

Giggles_Manically wrote...

No matter the system that is created there will be abuses inherent in it.

As the peasant in Quest for the Holy Grail once said:
"Come see the violence inherent in the system!"

This.

Modifié par Deztyn, 17 juin 2011 - 09:46 .

[Sherbet Lemon]

Deztyn wrote...

I also find it horribly offensive to the point of rage inducing to continually see posters imply (or state outright) that supporting the Circles is supporting rape.

Well, that wasn't what I meant.  If I gave off that interpretation then I apologize.  I don't think supporting the Chantry means that a person supports rape.  I just think that as it stands right now, the system is set up in way that makes some abuse almost an inevitablity.   It is inherent in the system and in the culture.  I'm not for abolition of the circles nor do I mean to vilify the Chantry as I think the Chantry tries do good and means well (in theory).  The whole system just needs some reformation.  

[Silfren]

Deztyn wrote...

It's a strawman to keep harping on rape as a reason to tear down the Chantry when it's not supported, approved, or allowed by the Chantry. If a teacher rapes a student you arrest the teacher and fire or charge anyone who may have known about it. You don't completely tear down the entire school system.

I also find it horribly offensive to the point of rage inducing to continually see posters imply (or state outright) that supporting the Circles is supporting rape.

Giggles_Manically wrote...

No matter the system that is created there will be abuses inherent in it.

As the peasant in Quest for the Holy Grail once said:
"Come see the violence inherent in the system!"

This.

This applies more to Kirkwall's Chantry in particular rather than the Chantry as a whole, but we DO see in Kirkwall that the Chantry is turning a blind eye to the abuses of the templars.  I generalized into abuses rather than specifically rape, because yes, it is true that it is NOT an absolute given that Grand Cleric Elthina knew specifically about rapes being committed.  But she certainly knew that the templars were abusing the mages.  She had to have known.  If she didn't, then she was either willfully going out of her way to avoid knowing, or she was just plain deaf, dumb, and blind.

It's been said that Kirkwall is an example of the most oppressive Circle, whereas Ferelden's is the most liberal.  So it cannot be said that Kirkwall represents the bleak life faced by all mages.  However, for Kirkwall, it is a damn good argument for tearing down the Chantry, because it was Chantry law that the templars were breaking, and it was the Chantry's responsibility to deal with the transgressors.  That, right there, fits in with your bit about firing or charging anyone who knew about it. 

If there are other Circles within which there is a system by which the templars flout the law with impunity, and regard mages as their personal toys to torment according to their whim, then that is plenty of reason to tear down the system, because that system is either: cultivating templars who feel perfectly entitled to behave this way, or else its very design is geared toward attracting the sort of people who are eager to take advantage of the Chantry's thinly-veiled policy of not regarding its wards as having any rights worthy of acknowledgment.

[Silfren]

Deztyn wrote...

I also find it horribly offensive to the point of rage inducing to continually see posters imply (or state outright) that supporting the Circles is supporting rape.

Then I suppose we're even, as some of us find it offensive to the point of rage inducing that you would make such an egregiously dismissive statement as "playing the rape card."  No, that didn't sound at all condescending or trivializing of the crime of rape, not at all.

[Deztyn]

Village Idiot,

That wasn't really directed at you. More to explain my reaction to the original poster I was answering.

Silfren,

One thing to remember is that you're not talking about a society that has the resources to do the kind of in depth background checks we can in the real world before putting someone in a position of power. (And even in the real world it fails.) People inclined to abuse others will always gravitate to positions of authority. That's not necessarily something you can blame the Chantry for. Not entirely.

We've debated before about how pervasive that kind of abuse really was. I'm honestly not feeling like going through it again. I will say again that we only have 3 templars out of a dozen or so named templars who are abusive, and it's implied heavily that these guys aren't exactly flaunting it.

And no, it wasn't dismissing rape. It's dismissing the tendency of certain posters to play emotions and say things that boil down to if you support the Chantry, you support rape. Which I thought whould be obvious from reading the entire comment and the comment I was responding to, which started with "If we want to stop mages from being raped and tortured" setting up a word trap where anyone who disagrees with her plans for the future of Fereldan is supporting rape and torture. So yeah. That's playing the rape card. It's exploitative. And I find it offensive.

Modifié par Deztyn, 17 juin 2011 - 10:37 .

[LobselVith8]

Deztyn wrote...

You're not alone, I think it works best as pro-templar mage. Everything in the ending sequence makes more sense that way. Why Meredith would try to force the Champion to her side (and where she gets the authority to do so.) Why Meredith would turn against a Hawke who had supported her all along. Why Cullen would be comfortable arresting a champion who had been so helpful, and why he would refuse to kill the Champion.

Cullen's willingness to go against Meredith when she's going against a pro-mage Hawke never really made any sense to me. This particular Hawke is killing templars - why would Cullen care if the Champion is arrested or even killed resisting arrest? It's not even like Hawke surrendered to Meredith or anything like that.

Although I have to wonder how much sense it makes for the Circles of Magi across Thedas to rise up by being "inspired" by a symbol of oppression who, for some reason, showed the mages that "the templars can be defied" when a pro-templar Hawke is defeating the mages and aiding the templars in the Right of Annulment?

Deztyn wrote...

The only thing that feels out of place is Hawke becoming Viscount afterward. But then it opens up some interesting possibilities. I like to imagine a pro-templar mage Hawke could actually do more to create lasting change for mages than a pro-mage Hawke.

I never really saw the importance of Hawke being Viscount - the templars wield the real power. Wouldn't a pro-templar Hawke want to be the Knight-Commander if he wants to have any significant authority over eastern Thedas, including any say over the treatment of mages? I don't see Viscount Hawke having much - if any - impact, particularly if he's seen as a symbol of oppression to the mages and leaves office after three years.

[Torax]

If the Writers wanted us to side with the Templars then they did a horrible job at it. Since I sure as hell never have and how many have posted basically the same thing. Most see the mages and think of the innocent ones that would be killed. That is despite all the Blood Mages they killed through the entire game. So I would say if their goal was to get everyone to side with the Templars? They failed in every way shape and form...

[Deztyn]

Lobs,

A Mage Viscount Hawke would be a symbol, a counterpoint to the common fears of mages. She could be a visible positive example to show the world that a free mage can be productive, helpful and needn't be feared by the average man. Especially since she would be supported by the templars. Instead of being an oppressive tyrant to the poor mages in the Circle, think of her as an example of a noble mage who regretfully turned against her fellow mage to ensure peace for Kirkwall and upheld the law in a time of chaos. Mages might hate her, but I bet the average person would love her, and with time (and the right PR) that could translate into a populace more accepting of mages.

Ignoring the way the story actually goes with the disappearing in three years, of course.

Modifié par Deztyn, 17 juin 2011 - 10:56 .

[Silfren]

Torax wrote...

If the Writers wanted us to side with the Templars then they did a horrible job at it. Since I sure as hell never have and how many have posted basically the same thing. Most see the mages and think of the innocent ones that would be killed. That is despite all the Blood Mages they killed through the entire game. So I would say if their goal was to get everyone to side with the Templars? They failed in every way shape and form...

The Devs have made it clear they didn't want EVERYONE to side with the templars any more than they were happy with EVERYONE siding with the mages in Origins.

The consensus seems to be they were aiming for a 50/50 split, as doing so supposedly increases re-play value of a game.  It no more serves them for everyone to side with the templars than the reverse.

That said, there have actually been quite a lot of people who've gone on record as saying they find it very hard to support the mages.  I don't really understand the logic, as my own interpretation has always been that it's bloody obvious that the mages we see turning to blood magic are by and large doing so as a direct result of that Circle's oppressive methods, not because the Chantry is right about mages.  

The whole attitude seems to be that there is never any justification for "evil" no matter what a person is subjected to, that somehow a person is obligated to always take the moral high road no matter what abuses they suffer.  It's an extremely privileged position to take, and taken to its most extreme conclusion, it means that the only good mage is a dead mage, since a mage is apparently supposed to die before resorting to blood magic or demons.

[IanPolaris]

Deztyn wrote...

Lobs,

A Mage Viscount Hawke would be a symbol, a counterpoint to the common fears of mages. She could be a visible positive example to show the world that a free mage can be productive, helpful and needn't be feared by the average man. Especially since she would be supported by the templars. Instead of being an oppressive tyrant to the poor mages in the Circle, think of her as an example of a noble mage who regretfully turned against her fellow mage to ensure peace for Kirkwall and upheld the law in a time of chaos. Mages might hate her, but I bet the average person would love her, and with time (and the right PR) that could translate into a populace more accepting of mages.

Ignoring the way the story actually goes with the disappearing in three years, of course.

What makes you think that ANY Templar would even consider allowing a mage (let alone an open apostate) take any noble title if they can possibly help it?  The Viscount ending for the pro-templar mage-hawke makes zero sense.

-Polaris

[Silfren]

Deztyn wrote...

Lobs,

A Mage Viscount Hawke would be a symbol, a counterpoint to the common fears of mages. She could be a visible positive example to show the world that a free mage can be productive, helpful and needn't be feared by the average man. Especially since she would be supported by the templars. Instead of being an oppressive tyrant to the poor mages in the Circle, think of her as an example of a noble mage who regretfully turned against her fellow mage to ensure peace for Kirkwall and upheld the law in a time of chaos. Mages might hate her, but I bet the average person would love her, and with time (and the right PR) that could translate into a populace more accepting of mages.

Ignoring the way the story actually goes with the disappearing in three years, of course.

But he was referring to the mages perception of Hawke, not the general population's.  Were I a mage in that situation, I think I'd probably be more likely to see Hawke as a sellout, who turned against her fellow mages in a bid to gain power for personal reasons, as that strikes me as the only thing it could possibly look like from a mage perspective.

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

Lobs,

A Mage Viscount Hawke would be a symbol, a counterpoint to the common fears of mages. She could be a visible positive example to show the world that a free mage can be productive, helpful and needn't be feared by the average man. Especially since she would be supported by the templars. Instead of being an oppressive tyrant to the poor mages in the Circle, think of her as an example of a noble mage who regretfully turned against her fellow mage to ensure peace for Kirkwall and upheld the law in a time of chaos. Mages might hate her, but I bet the average person would love her, and with time (and the right PR) that could translate into a populace more accepting of mages.

Ignoring the way the story actually goes with the disappearing in three years, of course.

What makes you think that ANY Templar would even consider allowing a mage (let alone an open apostate) take any noble title if they can possibly help it?  The Viscount ending for the pro-templar mage-hawke makes zero sense.

-Polaris

Well yeah, that's the flip side to it all that doesn't make sense.  It's against Chantry law for a mage to hold a title or position of authority.  I don't see the templars going for that, even Cullen.  They don't have to be extremists themselves to not want to see a mage defying Chantry law, but they are by and large extreme, so it doesn't make sense for them to suddenly be willing to put an apostate in power, no less.

[IanPolaris]

Agreed, mages would likely regard a mage-hawke that sided with the Templars as their equivalent of Benedict Arnold.

-Polaris