1008 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

And as I pointed out, she could have been sent, by the Chantry/Circle/both, on a mission along with Templars, to stop a known blood mage, and test her litany there. She does in no way have to be a blood mage, accept that. Your theory is that she was one, and that is valid, but to say that she must have been 100% a blood mage, is just plain old and tried wrong.

[Wulfram]

I see no reason why a non blood mage Adralla couldn't have worked out the litany based on theory and knowledge, and then let the Templars test it out in the field when it was complete.

[Torax]

Adralla was from Tevinter. Her research to battle against mind control is what angered other magisters. Now it could be argued she was a Blood Mage herself but had her line drawn at mind control of others, but no matter what is assumptions on either side. It is only known for certain she had been researching and had already accomplished enough of her research that the magisters wished to kill her. This could just as easily mean that she had already devised how to do it and just needed to collect rare components and certain rituals/spells to craft it.

No matter what we would all be stating assumptions since the codex does not quite describe enough of it in great detail. Fenris even implies in conversation that it's possible not all magisters use blood magic. But since most seek power it is most likely that all the more powerful magisters would have all used Blood Magic at the very least. But this doesn't make a lean for or against Adralla being one herself. There is no certainty unless it's told to us directly by the writers. Just like the Writers would have to tell us the exact research, spells, rituals & components that were required to make such an item. Most importantly when and how she discovered it all. If the majority of her research was completed before she even left tevinter? Then she could very well have done it without Blood Magic herself.

Modifié par Torax, 24 juin 2011 - 10:03 .

[IanPolaris]

Wulfram wrote...

I see no reason why a non blood mage Adralla couldn't have worked out the litany based on theory and knowledge, and then let the Templars test it out in the field when it was complete.

How would Adralla know it was ready for testing in the field?  You can not know that without real, solid, empirical data and the only way to get that empirical data is to do testing with mind control magic under controilled conditions.  That means that someone had to know and use mind-control magic and thus was a bloodmage, and that someone had to be Adralla since there is no evidence for any other bloodmages being housed by the Chantry (nor any hint of any).

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

Or it could be trial and error... Face it, your theory that Adralla MUST have been a blood mage, isn't holding as much water as you'd like.

[Plaintiff]

So we're suggesting that people would willingly wander into Blood Mage lairs and provoke them into using mind control, on the offchance that reciting a poem will protect them? If it were to fail, how would the results be recorded? Pretty sure the "tester" would just get straight-up murdered.

Adralla = blood mage seems to make more sense.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Uhm.. You know who hunts Blood Mages? Templars.

You know who could bring along the litany, or even Adralla herself? Templars! Templars rarely work alone when hunting maleficar and/or abominations, so it stands to reason that they would be the field testers of some sort of prototype weapon against those particular enemies.


Could Adralla then have done her research without being a Blood Mage? Yes.

Could she also have done it and been a blood mage? Yes.

Is it all speculation? Yes.

Then why do some people claim that she was a blood mage and no other option exist? Because they want the Chantry to appear hypocritical, and they are grasping at straws.

[IanPolaris]

No she couldn't have done her research without being a bloodmage. Trial and Error have their place but when developing something really new, it's virtually worthless. To develope something like the Litany, you'd have to have years and perhaps even decades of very controlled tests using BLOODMAGIC under very specified conditions. Only during the final stages could you reasonable expose it to "real world" testing and expect to learn something useful.

I'm sorry, but especially given the risks, Adralla really had to be a bloodmage and her codex entry while dancing around it doesn't deny it.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Or it could be trial and error... Face it, your theory that Adralla MUST have been a blood mage, isn't holding as much water as you'd like.

If Adralla is not a bloodmage then she doesn't have the practical knowledge or ability to test her Litany that would otherwise be required.  It's a very straight line deduction and very solid at that.

-Polaris

[Sajuro]

IanPolaris wrote...

No she couldn't have done her research without being a bloodmage. Trial and Error have their place but when developing something really new, it's virtually worthless. To develope something like the Litany, you'd have to have years and perhaps even decades of very controlled tests using BLOODMAGIC under very specified conditions. Only during the final stages could you reasonable expose it to "real world" testing and expect to learn something useful.

I'm sorry, but especially given the risks, Adralla really had to be a bloodmage and her codex entry while dancing around it doesn't deny it.

-Polaris

Trial and Error may be virtually worthless when it is something new, but if that's all they had then it would still be the most valuable tool they had, She did study blood magic but was not required to be an active practitioner of it.
[hypothesis]: She develops the litany based on the theories of blood magic and how mind control works, and since she isn't willing to actually mind control people since it would be a fast way for the Templars to call her a malificar, she tells them that she is developing a litany that may help them against the blood mages and abominations and they are like 'cool we guess'. If it doesn't work to stun the abominations or prevent mind control, she goes back to refine the litany [/hypothesis]
Besides, developing a Litany isn't like making a catapult or another kind of weapon, for all we know what gave her research the extra push is that the litany was divinely inspired by the Maker. The fact is that by definition, the litany probably works by pitting the user's will against the blood mage's will through the repition of verses, kind of like "The power of christ compels you! The power of christ compels you!"

[IanPolaris]

In order to test the Litany under controlled conditions, SOMEONE had to use mind control magic to test it and that someone had to be Adralla. What's so hard to grok here? At some point I think an appeal to Occam's razor is in order.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  There is something else to consider too.  Maleficar aren't stupid and the Tevinter certainly aren't.  If you are going to roll out something as powerful as the Litany under battlefield conditions, then you HAVE to give the otherside as little warning and chance to develope countermeasures as possible.  That's especially true for Tevinter who are well known for being stellar magical researchers.  In short, it's not only not realistic, but actively DANGEROUS to try to "Field Test" something like the Litany on only theoretical knowledge.  Given that Adralla WAS a Tevinter magister, it's pretty much a sure bet along with all the other leading indicators, that yes, people, she was a practicing bloodmage.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 25 juin 2011 - 04:45 .

[Darkrider296]

David Gaider wrote...

Did Gaider and the other PTB intend for fans to side with the templars as Hawke in Dragon Age 2?

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

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

In my opinion Gaider the Mage Templar problem comes off as fairly black and white at times. The moment I heard Alain talk about rapings in the Circle (that continue over years) it was over in terms of support for the Templars.  Plus theirs the whippings that happen, plus in my opinion tranquality is inexcusable. Give the struggling mage extra tutoring. Guard him. But don't destory what makes him human. I don't want "controlling" another group to be the right answer. I do believe that if society saw mages as more than weapons more good would come. YES they really really need to be educated ie Connor but don't treat them as second class citizens. It pathologizes most into the arms of demons. Mages in a caring society that respected innate rights with all races having a say in goverment would not be a big problem. Mages could help regulate other mages only with the help of civlian goverments. Builder and healer mages could help do great things for society. There are so many possiblites. Don't tell me forcing a bunch of people into a tower for life is the only solution.  Plus people often like to bring up Tevinter as to why Mages suck and should be imprisoned. Yes Tevinter is an evil society no doubt but it does show that Mages can maintain a functioning/ordered society without over the control abominations all over the place. Where they go wrong is that the Mages are the only ones in control. The same way it sucks that assassins rule Antiva or Oralsis being ruled by jerkish Humans. People not magic is bad. Fear, bigotry, and inflated egos makes people dangerous not magic. A tool that can be dangerous, but if properly regulated it can also be a brillant light in the world that shouldn't be locked away. JUSTICE FOR ALL 

[Megaton_Hope]

Chantry has always seemed pretty short on silver linings to me. Templars no less so. You get down to brass tacks, and they're doing more and greater harm to both Templars and Mages than if they just didn't bother and stuck to doling out lamb-and-pea stew to the poor.

Especially this idea about walling up the mages together in a kind of miserable seclusion, where they can...conspire to use forbidden magic to escape Chantry control, and...study magic.

[Darkrider296]

David Gaider wrote...

Did Gaider and the other PTB intend for fans to side with the templars as Hawke in Dragon Age 2?

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

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

The option that favours submission of a people shouldn't be the right one at the end of the day. Even with your "grey apprach" I didn't feel comfortable when people like Cullen would refer to Mages as "weapons". They can do so much more than that, ie healing, building. I know people want to prevent another Tevinter fine. Therefore don't give Mages complete control in goverment. Simple as that. Mages in a society that respected innate rights, gave them an education, and didn't stigmatize them would turn out alright. Hell even if Tevinter sucks they don't have abominations running around, so in some respects they seem to understand how to control magic to sustain an evil but still functioning society. I believe that most of the time mages are pathologized into the arms of demons. You keep telling them they well it'll eventually happen. All I'm saying that in the Dragon universe I can still see bullish and cruel behaviour from all angles. I will happily kill foolish/selfish blood mages the same way I punish rapist/tyranical Templars. But even the so called "resonable" Templars ****** me off. Are they that blind to the scum that infests their order? Or are they desprate for recruits so they turn a blind eye to rapings. I go to the circle and I hear whippings. I hear mages tell me of terriable things. I see tranquality which hurts my stomach. Give the struggling mage extra teaching. Guard him. But don't remove his humanity. Never in my books will oppresion of another group be the "right" decsion. My Hawke was raised by a noble man who proved that Mages could live normal and decent lives, but because we instantly judge them for the past mistakes of powerful fools, their self worth/desire to do good is diminshed. JUSTICE FOR THE MAGES AND ALL OTHER OPPRSED GROUPS 

Modifié par Darkrider296, 23 février 2012 - 02:33 .

[Darkrider296]

David Gaider wrote...

Did Gaider and the other PTB intend for fans to side with the templars as Hawke in Dragon Age 2?

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

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

When I see stuff like this  I can't possibly support the Templars, no matter how "grey" you call the conflict 

[TEWR]

Though this is an old quote of Gaider's from this thread and I doubt he'll respond -- let alone come onto the forums these days -- I still want to respond to it.

David Gaider wrote...

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

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

Your quotes don't do much to change the perceptions of people when you continuously shoved Templars like Alrik and Kerras in our face and killed off the decent Templars like Thrask, for reasons I and other people find ludicrous at best.

No offense meant to you or the other Bioware people as writers. I'm just criticizing the actual writing, which is a different thing.

What reason does a person who is pro-mage have to side with the Templars in Kirkwall if they are all like Alrik, Kerras, and Meredith? If the decent Templars are becoming far and few between? If the Templars are willing to kill all mages for the actions of an apostate? If the Grand Cleric can't even take control of the Knight Commander and her like-minded cronies (which doesn't mean she's siding with the mages, but that she's siding against Meredith, her cronies, and her methods).

All Elthina says is that she doesn't approve and she -- IIRC -- claims she's not completely helpless. But we don't see any real action towards controlling Meredith other then "Go home to the Gallows", so how are we supposed to believe her?

Actions speak louder then words, y'know.

How does that make it so that our perceptions should change?

Answer: It doesn't. Our perceptions stay the same. You pushed both sides to such absurd extremes that you made it impossible for a pro-mage person to change their stance and say "Hey... maybe I should go the Templar route here."

But when Anders committed an act outside of the knowledge and assistance of the Circle and the mages are going to get punished for it, that removes any sense of a moral dilemma. That immediately paints the situation as black and white.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 29 février 2012 - 02:31 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

If you were pro-mage before DA2 chances are you are going to remain one after the game, and the same goes for Templars. That isn't a fault of the game, that is just how humans and our convictions function. If you've ever had a political debate with an ardent supporter of whatever party, you will know that they won't change their opinion no matter what is said. Even if you show proof of widespread corruption, chances are they will remain loyal to the core ideals of said party.

I simply fail to see how it is the fault of the writing and the game, to be unable to change human nature.

(btw, Anders was doing his terror action with the assistance of the mage Underground IIRC. And that Underground had contacts and members within the Circle.)

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 29 février 2012 - 02:41 .

[Xilizhra]

(btw, Anders was doing his terror action with the assistance of the mage Underground IIRC. And that Underground had contacts and members within the Circle.)

You do not RC. The entire thing was wiped out by Meredith apart from Thrask's group, and then they fell themselves.

[TEWR]

If you were pro-mage before DA2 chances are you are going to remain one after the game, and the same goes for Templars. That isn't a fault of the game, that is just how humans and our convictions function. If you've ever had a political debate with an ardent supporter of whatever party, you will know that they won't change their opinion no matter what is said. Even if you show proof of widespread corruption, chances are they will remain loyal to the core ideals of said party.

I simply fail to see how it is the fault of the writing and the game, to be unable to change human nature

I can only truly speak for myself. I try and weigh the pros and cons of both sides before coming to a decision. So I can safely say that I would've considered having a Pro-Templar Hawke if the situation was sufficiently grey enough.

It's like Skyrim's civil war. I see pros and cons to both the Stormcloaks and the Empire. I don't pick one over the other all the time.

David Gaider's quotes are directly trying to make pro-mage supporters change their stance by believing that certain values and definitions and whatnot don't exist in Thedas. Which I do not believe myself, but anyway.

If convictions couldn't change, then there's no point in Gaider making such comments to try and have people change their minds or even present a story like the Mage-Templar conflict.

Convictions can change, especially when presented with something that sufficiently and appropriately challenges your beliefs. Fairly easily if done right.

I've had arguments -- political ones -- with my mom. She has sometimes said that she would prefer a certain Democrat over some other person, and she's a Republican. My friends have political beliefs that differ from my own, but we're each able to see that some who are of a different party may be better in a political position when we discuss politics on rare occasions (normally we just act like idiots).

btw, Anders was doing his terror action with the assistance of the mage Underground IIRC. And that Underground had contacts and members within the Circle.)

Incorrect. Anders says that the Underground is wiped out. They were crushed and scattered to the four winds by Meredith.

Anders' act was all his own.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 29 février 2012 - 03:11 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

(btw, Anders was doing his terror action with the assistance of the mage Underground IIRC. And that Underground had contacts and members within the Circle.)

You do not RC. The entire thing was wiped out by Meredith apart from Thrask's group, and then they fell themselves.

Anders does talk about not wanting to include Hawke in his plans, as he didn't want Hawke to be connected to him, or the people he was working with. At least that is how I remember it.. Its been a while..

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

(btw, Anders was doing his terror action with the assistance of the mage Underground IIRC. And that Underground had contacts and members within the Circle.)

You do not RC. The entire thing was wiped out by Meredith apart from Thrask's group, and then they fell themselves.

Anders does talk about not wanting to include Hawke in his plans, as he didn't want Hawke to be connected to him, or the people he was working with. At least that is how I remember it.. Its been a while..

You're half right. He simply says that he doesn't want Hawke to be implicated and blamed for an act that is to be on Anders' head only.

There is no mention of him working with anyone in his mission to play Jenga with the Chantry, since he didn't have anyone other then possibly Hawke that he could rely on at this point in time.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 29 février 2012 - 03:09 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

If you were pro-mage before DA2 chances are you are going to remain one after the game, and the same goes for Templars. That isn't a fault of the game, that is just how humans and our convictions function. If you've ever had a political debate with an ardent supporter of whatever party, you will know that they won't change their opinion no matter what is said. Even if you show proof of widespread corruption, chances are they will remain loyal to the core ideals of said party.

I simply fail to see how it is the fault of the writing and the game, to be unable to change human nature

I can only truly speak for myself. I try and weigh the pros and cons of both sides before coming to a decision. So I can safely say that I would've considered having a Pro-Templar Hawke if the situation was sufficiently grey enough.

It's like Skyrim's civil war. I see pros and cons to both the Stormcloaks and the Empire. I don't pick one over the other all the time.

But David Gaider's quotes are directly trying to make pro-mage supporters change their stance by believing that certain values and whatnot don't exist in Thedas.

Which I do not believe myself, but anyway.

If convictions couldn't change, then there's no point in Gaider making such comments to try and have people change their minds or even present a story like the Mage-Templar conflict.

Convictions can change, especially when presented with something that sufficiently and appropriately challenges your beliefs. Fairly easily if done right.

I've had arguments -- political ones -- with my mom. She has sometimes said that she would prefer a certain Democrat over some other person, and she's a Republican.

My friends have political beliefs that differ from my own, but we're each able to see that some who are of a different party may be better in a political position when we discuss politics on rare occasions (normally we just act like idiots).

Just because you are able to see things from the opposition's point of view, does not mean you have flexible convictions. The very fact that you and your friends still have opposing political views, is just further proof that convictions are hard to change.
Sure, you can erode a republican's faith in his representative (or whatever it is you call it), but that doesn't make him a democrat. That just makes him wise enough, to realize, that right now the opposition is stronger. I have never seen anyone who have been an ardent follower of a political party, change sides completely and support the opposition.

[TEWR]

Just because you are able to see things from the opposition's point of view, does not mean you have flexible convictions. The very fact that you and your friends still have opposing political views, is just further proof that convictions are hard to change.
Sure, you can erode a republican's faith in his representative (or whatever it is you call it), but that doesn't make him a democrat. That just makes him wise enough, to realize, that right now the opposition is stronger. I have never seen anyone who have been an ardent follower of a political party, change sides completely and support the opposition.

Sure, changing full sides is harder to do if you want someone to be like that in the long run.

But I was primarily addressing in my post to Gaider above how someone could consider siding with the Templars in DAII.

Whether they'd side with them in DA3 is unknown, but you want them to side with the opposition in DAII. If they sided with the mages in DAO, try and present something that makes them wonder if the Templars are the right path to go in DAII. Try and give them something that shows the pros and cons of both sides.

They may go back to supporting the mages in DAIII based on what it presents, but for now at least show them that there isn't a right answer and they can't just keep siding with one side.

DAII didn't do this. Not in my mind. Not in the mind of other people.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 29 février 2012 - 03:25 .

[Xilizhra]

Nor should it, in my own opinion.

[DarkAmaranth1966]

Just from my own observations in my own family, and not to knock any spiritual beliefs:

I, being pagan tend to see the Chant of Light as the Bible of Thedas and, therefore, in my mind as much of a good story as I see the real world Bible, sure good values and all, but not fact. As such i take the Tempalrs and Chantry supporters with a grain of sand, as I do Judeo-Christian clergy in this world. I side with mages more than not.

My Grandaughter is a devout Baptist and sees the mages as heathen and in need of being converted, so she sides with the Templars more than not.

For me it's a case of "I see their side - they are too closed minded to see that they might be wrong and, if i were a devout of their faith, I would agree with them. I'm not and I don't"