1008 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Silfren wrote...
Go ahead, repost the damn thing.  The damage is already done, I'm irreparably scarred for life thanks to you and your enablers.  *glares at various forumites*

I actually have other ones.

[DPSSOC]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

it also means the Qunari win their next war against all of Thedas, and it's game over since I don't see a Qunari dominated Thedas being a very interesting place to play a fantasy game.

Player: "I want to be a warrior!"
Game: "No."
Player: ""What?"
Game: "You have the IQ and physical build up of a farmer. That will be your purpose"
Player: "But I want to be a warrior!!"
Game: "No." *starts game*
Player: "Ok fine. Let's adjust the difficulty at least"
Game: "No."
Player: "son of a..."

Bioware, please include Qunari as a playable race in DA3 and let this be the entire game.

IanPolaris wrote...
There is no a priori reason why mages that go into rebellian have to be slavering, demon crazed monsters whatever DA2 (erroneously and dishonestly) wants you to believe.

-Polaris

Well DA:O kind of supports this too.  In both games every mage that fights (physically) for freedom is a slavering, demon crazed monster (PC excepted).  Uldred and his buddies in DA:O as well as Anders and almost every free mage we encounter in DA2.  Mages + Freedom = DOOM!

Edit: After seeing KoP's post.  MY EYES!!

Modifié par DPSSOC, 18 juin 2011 - 02:27 .

[Deztyn]

MerSino

Those are definitely new!

****Proud Enabler of KoP's Thread Derailments****

IanPolaris wrote...

There is no a priori reason why mages that go into rebellian have to be slavering, demon crazed monsters whatever DA2 (erroneously and dishonestly) wants you to believe.

-Polaris

I said nothing about slavering, demon crazed monsters (Though I don't doubt there's going to be a few). The fact that Cassandra seems to be looking for Hawke (on either side) or the Warden to try and resolve things is another  indication that there are definite problems.

Modifié par Deztyn, 18 juin 2011 - 02:45 .

[IanPolaris]

DPSSOC wrote...

Well DA:O kind of supports this too.  In both games every mage that fights (physically) for freedom is a slavering, demon crazed monster (PC excepted).  Uldred and his buddies in DA:O as well as Anders and almost every free mage we encounter in DA2.  Mages + Freedom = DOOM!

Edit: After seeing KoP's post.  MY EYES!!

That is absolutely false.  The Mages Collective are technically in rebellion, but they are anything but demon crazed monsters.  Also if you talk with the bloodmage prisoner in DAO, you find that her motives are genuinely sympathetic even if her specific actions are not.  It was ULDRED that went off the deep end, not his followers per se.   There is a reason why almost all players sided with mages in DAO.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Deztyn wrote...

I said nothing about slavering, demon crazed monsters (Though I don't doubt there's going to be a few). The fact that Cassandra seems to be looking for Hawke (on either side) or the Warden to try and resolve things indicates that there are definite problems.

The implication was that a mage rebellion means they the mages declared open season on the rest of Thedas.  That seems to be anything but the case.  As for there being "definate problems", Cassandra is a Chantry stooge and the Chantry has lost control of both the Mages' Circles AND the Templars (the prime military arm of the Chantry) so OF COURSE from her point of few there are 'definate problems'.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[dp]

[Deztyn]

No. The implication was that mages were out there causing a lot of trouble. What with setting the world on fire and all. So if they're not making trouble for anyone anywhere what do you think this rebellion is actually doing? Knitting blankets for orphaned children?

[DPSSOC]

IanPolaris wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Well DA:O kind of supports this too.  In both games every mage that fights (physically) for freedom is a slavering, demon crazed monster (PC excepted).  Uldred and his buddies in DA:O as well as Anders and almost every free mage we encounter in DA2.  Mages + Freedom = DOOM!

Edit: After seeing KoP's post.  MY EYES!!

That is absolutely false.  The Mages Collective are technically in rebellion, but they are anything but demon crazed monsters.

Agreed but note the bolded qualification.  Plenty of mages rebel against the Chantry; Morrigan is in rebellion against the Chantry simply for being, but those who take up arms and fight are, to a one, monsters.

IanPolaris wrote...
Also if you talk with the bloodmage prisoner in DAO, you find that her motives are genuinely sympathetic even if her specific actions are not.

It's not our motivations that decide whether or not we're monsters.  If I'm not mistaken you encounter that Blood Mage after they summon, and fail to control, a demon (or is that a different group of blood mages?).  Regardless she is completely without remorse for what she's done, for what Uldred has done.  She defends it and only offers to make amends if you make it a condition of her release.

[IanPolaris]

Deztyn wrote...

No. The implication was that mages were out there causing a lot of trouble. What with setting the world on fire and all. So if they're not making trouble for anyone anywhere what do you think this rebellion is actually doing? Knitting blankets for orphaned children?

Um, DUH!  Rebellions cause loads of trouble for the status quo.  That's what "set the world on fire" generally means.  It is not ipso facto a negative thing.

-Polaris

[dragonflight288]

Agreed but note the bolded qualification. Plenty of mages rebel against the Chantry; Morrigan is in rebellion against the Chantry simply for being, but those who take up arms and fight are, to a one, monsters.

Agreed on that point. That would mean the dalish keepers are also in rebellion, and the tribal leaders of, was it Rivain or Nevarra?...who according to their own traditions allow themselves to become possessed with the support of the populace. They would be in rebellion.

[IanPolaris]

DPSSOC wrote...
It's not our motivations that decide whether or not we're monsters.  If I'm not mistaken you encounter that Blood Mage after they summon, and fail to control, a demon (or is that a different group of blood mages?).  Regardless she is completely without remorse for what she's done, for what Uldred has done.  She defends it and only offers to make amends if you make it a condition of her release.

I disagree.  Motivation is a crucial component as to whether or not one should be considered a "monster" or not.  The blood mages that followed Uldred were NOT monsters.  They were fighting a rebellion and killed those that resisted.  That makes them irregular soldiers not monsters.  What Uldred did post-possession makes him a monster, but that would have been the case anyway by being possessed by a demon.

In short, fighting and killing does not make one a monster.

In DAO, even Uldred's human followers were not monsters.  They were soldiers in a revolution that got betrayed the moment that Uldred became possessed.  In a large way they are as much the victimes as anyone else.

-Polaris

Edit: You are mistaken.  The bloodmage you capture did try to kill you but in no way summoned a demon.  There is another group of bloodmages that gets found by a demon and is killed by it.  Basically even the mage rebels in DAO are a lot more human (and NOT monsters) than you are willing to admit.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 18 juin 2011 - 03:03 .

[dragonflight288]

It's not our motivations that decide whether or not we're monsters. If I'm not mistaken you encounter that Blood Mage after they summon, and fail to control, a demon (or is that a different group of blood mages?). Regardless she is completely without remorse for what she's done, for what Uldred has done. She defends it and only offers to make amends if you make it a condition of her release.

I'm suddenly thinking of Jade Empire, when talking to Smiling Mountain about the Paths of Harmony and Discord. An evil man may not help a man being attacked, because he doesn't care. A person on the low path wouldn't help because that person should prove they are fit to survive on their own. Or they may help if the odds are unreasonable, or to incur favor. The difference is in the details. The example Smiling Mountain gave, those details was the motivation behind the act.

[IanPolaris]

dragonflight288 wrote...

It's not our motivations that decide whether or not we're monsters. If I'm not mistaken you encounter that Blood Mage after they summon, and fail to control, a demon (or is that a different group of blood mages?). Regardless she is completely without remorse for what she's done, for what Uldred has done. She defends it and only offers to make amends if you make it a condition of her release.

I'm suddenly thinking of Jade Empire, when talking to Smiling Mountain about the Paths of Harmony and Discord. An evil man may not help a man being attacked, because he doesn't care. A person on the low path wouldn't help because that person should prove they are fit to survive on their own. Or they may help if the odds are unreasonable, or to incur favor. The difference is in the details. The example Smiling Mountain gave, those details was the motivation behind the act.

Indeed, motivation is a key component in whether or not an act is moral or not and thus makes a person a monster or not.  Even healing can be done for very evil reasons.

-Polaris

[dragonflight288]

Kind of like KOTOR II, with the influence system. I used Palpatine as a model when I was playing a Sith, and didn't get truly dark until near the end of the game because I was corrupting all my companions by playing their friend. I did some good deeds for a malevolent purpose.

[Nightdragon8]

Ok, the views that I had on both my DAO and DA2 chacters is this. The way the mages are being treated =not good. And that there has to be a better way to do things. Because as it is, if you can use magic = your a living weapon and thus you will have all the same rights as a weapon does. You will be locked up for safe keeping like a sword would be. You will be maintained (food and clothed and cleaned) like a sword being polished, steathed. You can be what you want to be inside the confines of the Circle. So you can be a Axe hammer sword or spear but you have to be a weapon.

And if you don't want to be a weapon, you can go though a process where you will be stripped of being human.

So imo there needs to be a better way. cause as it is, you are being punished for being born, and a society that does that is bound to blow up in a very very nasty way. and as Hawke you are put right in the middle of how it all started. And as in the game. It was going to happen wither you where there or not and maybe or maybe not the idol would have made a difference but IMO it was going to happen at some point, the problem was there long before Hawke went down and got the idol, its just that it may have caused the war to start sooner than it would have.

[dragonflight288]

Very eloquent way of putting it.

[DPSSOC]

IanPolaris wrote...
In short, fighting and killing does not make one a monster.

Showing no remorse when numerous innocents have died as a result of your actions does.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions; whatever that girl may have set out to do, however noble her intentions, she became a monster the moment she realized the ramifications of the mages' actions (Demons, demons everywhere), that innocent people were suffering because of what they had done, and did not care.

A man who does wrong for the right reasons and admits his folly is not a monster, a man who does wrong for the right reasons and denies his folly is.

IanPolaris wrote...
Edit: You are mistaken.  The bloodmage you capture did try to kill you but in no way summoned a demon.  There is another group of bloodmages that gets found by a demon and is killed by it.

Thought that might be the case

Modifié par DPSSOC, 18 juin 2011 - 03:54 .

[IanPolaris]

DPSSOC wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
In short, fighting and killing does not make one a monster.

Showing no remorse when numerous innocents have died as a result of your actions does.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions; whatever that girl may have set out to do, however noble her intentions, she became a monster the moment she realized the ramifications of the mages' actions (Demons, demons everywhere), that innocent people were suffering because of what they had done, and did not care.

A man who does wrong for the right reasons and admits his folly is not a monster, a man who does wrong for the right reasons and denies his folly is.

IanPolaris wrote...
Edit: You are mistaken.  The bloodmage you capture did try to kill you but in no way summoned a demon.  There is another group of bloodmages that gets found by a demon and is killed by it.

Thought that might be the case

She did care.  However, she put it very correctly and very eloquantly when she said that Andraste did not overthrow the Imperium with a strongly worded letter.  Summoning the Demons was risky but that does not in of itself make you a monster.  What the demons did afterwords is NOT her fault and the rebels are as much victimized by the demons as are the loyalists.

-Polaris

[DPSSOC]

IanPolaris wrote...
She did care.  However, she put it very correctly and very eloquantly when she said that Andraste did not overthrow the Imperium with a strongly worded letter.

No I got that and sympathized, but she knows that innocent people died because of what they'd done, that children had died, and that it was all for nothing, but she still defends it.  That's a startling lack of remorse from where I'm sitting.  No acknowledgement that they made a mistake, that perhaps Uldred went to far, nothing.

IanPolaris wrote...
Summoning the Demons was risky but that does not in of itself make you a monster.  What the demons did afterwords is NOT her fault and the rebels are as much victimized by the demons as are the loyalists.

-Polaris

I light the match that burns the house down; it's my fault.  Doesn't matter if it wasn't my intent, it's still my fault.

[IanPolaris]

DPSSOC wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
She did care.  However, she put it very correctly and very eloquantly when she said that Andraste did not overthrow the Imperium with a strongly worded letter.

No I got that and sympathized, but she knows that innocent people died because of what they'd done, that children had died, and that it was all for nothing, but she still defends it.  That's a startling lack of remorse from where I'm sitting.  No acknowledgement that they made a mistake, that perhaps Uldred went to far, nothing.

In a fight for survival nothing is too far or as the Irish would say, "You can't make an omlette without cracking a few eggs".  She DOES regret what has happened to the tower, but does not think her rebellion was wrong.  See the difference? This means she DOES CARE and therefor is not a monster no matter how hard you try to paint her and her fellow rebels as one.

If she were a monster than every revolutionary since the dawn of time would be monsters and that's not true.

IanPolaris wrote...
Summoning the Demons was risky but that does not in of itself make you a monster.  What the demons did afterwords is NOT her fault and the rebels are as much victimized by the demons as are the loyalists.

-Polaris

I light the match that burns the house down; it's my fault.  Doesn't matter if it wasn't my intent, it's still my fault.

ULDRED is responsible for summoning the demons, but given the option (defeat and death) it's a totally understanable option.  Does that make Uldred (pre-abomination) responsible? Yes.  Does that make Uldred and his rebels monsters?  No.  What the demons did afterwards the demons CHOSE to do and the rebels aren't responsible for that.  The Demons are.

-Polaris

[Foolsfolly]

Torax wrote...

lets be fair though. Jack is good at one thing. Killing lots of husks at once. Which isn't really handy in many locations. Less so if you have Shockwave yourself. Past that her shot gun is her downfall like Tali. They get to close in on mobs and tend to die. Keep in mind I use Grunt cause I like his attitude. Main complaint with him is just he can get in the way of a sniper shot depending. But for example if I'm going on a geth mission? I'd more likely use Zaeed and Thane and give them both Incisors. Especially my shep has Disrupt ammo. I make Shep's squad disrupt and let Zaeed get his max aoe ignoring disrupt on him. Since both Zaeed and Thane can spec 50% weapon damage they hit like trucks and are far enough back that they are hardly touched.

I stopped using Kasumi when I started to find I'd be killing her targets before her port completed. So she was getting replaced by others. Grunt's main worth was Incendiary. Since incendiary is like reave for humanoid cc it's useful even with just 1 other sniper. I get Grunt a Mattock and let him charge whatever gets in close since he has a ton of armor. Zaeed or Thane can easily take out far off mobs or at the very least make sure they're not hiding as often.

I use Zaeed more often earlier though. Since it's harder to max out Thane properly until you can complete the LSB

Jack is good at Husk fighting on difficulties below Hardcore. However she's not the best. The best is always going to be Shepard (especially if you have Throw Field and a few Biotic upgrades to get the cooldown upgrade then you're flinging Husks faster than they can spawn). Samara and Jacob (if you so build him) are really great at tearing through Husks. But yeah, Shockwave is a destructive monster when used properly against Husks.

Shotgunners in ME2 in general suck. They lack the health, speed, and skills to properly be shotgunners. The only non-Shepard companion who could properly shotgun was Wrex. Wrex had two ways to bring back his shields (Barrier and Shield Something), Immunity which made him almost immortal, a huge health pool, and health regeneration in a game where that mattered (Grunt has health regen but I honestly can't tell you if that means anything).

And if a Battlemaster or Geth Prime charged him he had Throw to keep them off him. All around amazing shotgunner.

No one in ME2 gets close to that amount of endurance or skills that benefit being a shotgunner.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

For a minute, I actually though I was in the ME section. What happened?

I have no idea and I was there. Not at all. But I enjoyed it. I love Mass Effect.

Agamo45 wrote...

They did their best to instill sympathy
for those poor mages, but I always side with the templars because it
seems that the devs forgot to write a mage ending. The current mage
ending makes no goddamn sense, theres no reason for Orsino to turn on
you that's just horrible writing.

The "reason" is because he saw dead bodies and wigged out. That's something they focused on in DA2 that the naughty Templars stress the Mages and that causes them to go abomination. Orsino was stressed and turned into a monster.

...it's weak. And it makes me notice the fact that in the Mage war all the Templars have to do is use psychological warfare to stress the mages and then watch them tear each other apart.

Of course then there's an influx of demons and abominations but they're actually easier to defeat than mages are.

...from a gameplay perspective. From the lore it sounds like they're supposed to be stronger.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Deztyn wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
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

What you're making a mistake with, in my very humble opinion, is in assuming that such possession happens in a vacuum - without even considering the causes.

Constantly reminding ("accusing" is the precise word actually) someone that he/she may fall prey to a demon would not be my way of going about it. It would simply work toward undermining his/her confidence in countering such possession and confidence in the Chantry itself, to say the least. My objective, if I were taking up such a task, would be to arm the person better against becoming possessed.

What I'm interested in though is about the situation in Tevinter. Do we hear anything about possession being as common there as you suggest it is in Ferelden and/or Kirkwall (CulturalGeekGirl did say Ferelden, rather mistakenly, I think)?  And is it as catastropic? If it is not common or catastropic, why is it not so? What is it that makes demons prey particularly upon those mages we've seen in Kirkwall, for instance?

In any case, I think more research on demonic possessions needs to be undertaken. I know the Chantry and the Templars forbid it, as suggested in the Journal of Enchanter Wilhelm. We hardly seem to know anything about the "whys" of things (not much about the Fade, about the spirits and demons that inhabit it), and certainly these restrictions aren't helping much. The Litany of Andralla is another example of a research actually benefitting - the Chantry seems to have little qualms about the Circle using it, even though it doesn't sanction such research - a hyporcitical attitude at best.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 18 juin 2011 - 08:52 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Silfren wrote...

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?

The issue is in having a schism between what one professes to uphold and what one actually does in practice - hypocrisy, with the system of law becoming one merely of double standard. The situation in Tevinter (controlled by another Chantry) seems similar - a magister calls the shots there, with the end result being not the abuse of mages, but that of elven and human slaves. Oppression in both cases being the common denominator.

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.

What do I think is the actual issue with this? That the fates of the many is now dependent upon the arbitrary "working relationships," as you put it, between two persons. It is no longer about any kind of objective law.

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

Right.

However, it would be wrong to say that all or even many templars resort to abuse, just because they can. Because the error would essentially be the same - one cannot say anything about any particular mage or templar based on actions of another.

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
She did care.  However, she put it very correctly and very eloquantly when she said that Andraste did not overthrow the Imperium with a strongly worded letter.

No I got that and sympathized, but she knows that innocent people died because of what they'd done, that children had died, and that it was all for nothing, but she still defends it.  That's a startling lack of remorse from where I'm sitting.  No acknowledgement that they made a mistake, that perhaps Uldred went to far, nothing.

In a fight for survival nothing is too far or as the Irish would say, "You can't make an omlette without cracking a few eggs".  She DOES regret what has happened to the tower, but does not think her rebellion was wrong.  See the difference? This means she DOES CARE and therefor is not a monster no matter how hard you try to paint her and her fellow rebels as one.

If she were a monster than every revolutionary since the dawn of time would be monsters and that's not true.

IanPolaris wrote...
Summoning the Demons was risky but that does not in of itself make you a monster.  What the demons did afterwords is NOT her fault and the rebels are as much victimized by the demons as are the loyalists.

-Polaris

I light the match that burns the house down; it's my fault.  Doesn't matter if it wasn't my intent, it's still my fault.

ULDRED is responsible for summoning the demons, but given the option (defeat and death) it's a totally understanable option.  Does that make Uldred (pre-abomination) responsible? Yes.  Does that make Uldred and his rebels monsters?  No.  What the demons did afterwards the demons CHOSE to do and the rebels aren't responsible for that.  The Demons are.

-Polaris

So, as long as you feel bad about it, any sort of horrific action you do, is totally justifiable?

[dragonflight288]

Okay, here's where people get mixed up on the controversies of war. If you are a general in a battlefield. You will make orders that will get people killed. If you are fighting enemy combatants, their general will give orders that will get people killed. There may be innocent people nearby the two forces who will get killed.

You can't have the morality in society apply to war, because not taking any chances, not making aggressive decisions when the enemy will, WILL get you and your soldiers killed.

It is controversial, it is a sad fact, but the best generals are the ones who make the hard choices that get people killed.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 18 juin 2011 - 02:44 .