1253 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Most of the pro-mages are also dead set on viewing the mages as nothing but victims, and then won't ever admit to the dangers that mages present. Same with the pro-Circle/Templars. We are often so dead set on focusing on the dangers mages present, that we don't... I don't even know how to end that sentence... There is probably something we don't look at...

That what a phenomenal waste this entire system incurs.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Most of the pro-mages are also dead set on viewing the mages as nothing but victims, and then won't ever admit to the dangers that mages present. Same with the pro-Circle/Templars. We are often so dead set on focusing on the dangers mages present, that we don't... I don't even know how to end that sentence... There is probably something we don't look at...

....realize they are human beings with human rights.

That's the end to the sentece you are looking for.

-Polaris

[jlb524]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Most of the pro-mages are also dead set on viewing the mages as nothing but victims, and then won't ever admit to the dangers that mages present.

They are victims of an oppressive social institution and sure they can be dangerous...does that justify denying their rights as persons?

[KnightofPhoenix]

The differences in our responses is quite revealing.

[Xilizhra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The differences in our responses is quite revealing.

And that's why it's so wonderful to have you both, as both of them are true.

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The differences in our responses is quite revealing.

Which only proves that those that are dissatisified are hardly monolithic "mage lovers" from whom mages can do no wrong.

-Polaris

[Follow Me on Twitter]

I don't think Thedas is part of the united nations.

[IanPolaris]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

I don't think Thedas is part of the united nations.

The gamers that play in it almost certainly are though, and modern moral concepts including the Haulocaust and the idea of illegal orders most certainly exist in thedas.  It is hypocritical IMHO to laud the modern moral concepts unless they disagree with a particular side you've chosen in the game.

-Polaris

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Most of the pro-mages are also dead set on viewing the mages as nothing but victims, and then won't ever admit to the dangers that mages present. Same with the pro-Circle/Templars. We are often so dead set on focusing on the dangers mages present, that we don't... I don't even know how to end that sentence... There is probably something we don't look at...

I think most of the pro-mage crowd is dead set on viewing the mages as INDIVIDUALS.  As in, they aren't guilty until they have committed a crime.   As in, don't lock them up for life because they have the ability to do something.  Besides which, locking them up doesn't seem to be actually working, and in the case of Kirkwall, appears to be actively driving them mad and making matters worse.

The pro-Templar crowd appears to consider innocent non-mages as somehow more innocent than any mage can be.  Being aware of what a mage is capable of and setting up certain safeguards and training practices is one thing.  But supporting the imprisonment of mages for life, captives of a militant religion that preaches they are too dangerous to ever be free is a different thing.

Plus, if they really want to convince the player that mages are ticking time bombs, then I'd like to actually see that in game play.  I want to see an apostate in hiding who was walking to the local bakery to get a fix for a cinnamon bun craving and suddenly becomes a hunger abomination and we have to stop them. 

What we see in DA2 is mages driven to the brink of sanity who then cave in for fairly clear reasons.  We don't see otherwise fully trained and well intentioned mages suddenly going "RWARRR Kill them all!!" in the middle of the street.  There is no game play proof that mages are under constant threat of demonic possession and must be kept captive lest possession happen in the wild, so to speak.  If it something more than Chantry propaganda, then throw in a quest to show it.

As Ian and several others have pointed out, there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe the Chantry claims that mages who are allowed to run free are too dangerous.  They live freely in several game societies and the rare abomination among them is dealt with and everyone moves on.  If it truly was a common enough occurrence to jusify locking up all mages by default, then societies without circles should have been wiped out by now.

Modifié par GavrielKay, 30 août 2011 - 08:47 .

[Follow Me on Twitter]

You mean genocide? I think thats the word you are looking for. 

If you want our two worlds to clash fine, picture modern earth with mages. Im almost positive that the way they would treat them on our planet would make the Templars look like saints.

Modifié par Follow Me on Twitter, 30 août 2011 - 08:56 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The differences in our responses is quite revealing.

And that's why it's so wonderful to have you both, as both of them are true.

Indeed, diversity is interesting.

[TEWR]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

My 3 favorite antagonists are Loghain (who does stupid things), Jacques de Aldesberg (TW1) and Letho of Gulet (TW2).

They are different characters in a lot of ways, and none of them would really qualify as a Xanatos. I don't need them to be, for them to be interesting to me.

Vayne Solidor is one of my favorite antagonists.

[EmperorSahlertz]

GavrielKay wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Most of the pro-mages are also dead set on viewing the mages as nothing but victims, and then won't ever admit to the dangers that mages present. Same with the pro-Circle/Templars. We are often so dead set on focusing on the dangers mages present, that we don't... I don't even know how to end that sentence... There is probably something we don't look at...

I think most of the pro-mage crowd is dead set on viewing the mages as INDIVIDUALS.  As in, they aren't guilty until they have committed a crime.   As in, don't lock them up for life because they have the ability to do something.  Besides which, locking them up doesn't seem to be actually working, and in the case of Kirkwall, appears to be actively driving them mad and making matters worse.

The pro-Templar crowd appears to consider innocent non-mages as somehow more innocent than any mage can be.  Being aware of what a mage is capable of and setting up certain safeguards and training practices is one thing.  But supporting the imprisonment of mages for life, captives of a militant religion that preaches they are too dangerous to ever be free is a different thing.

Plus, if they really want to convince the player that mages are ticking time bombs, then I'd like to actually see that in game play.  I want to see an apostate in hiding who was walking to the local bakery to get a fix for a cinnamon bun craving and suddenly becomes a hunger abomination and we have to stop them. 

What we see in DA2 is mages driven to the brink of sanity who then cave in for fairly clear reasons.  We don't see otherwise fully trained and well intentioned mages suddenly going "RWARRR Kill them all!!" in the middle of the street.  There is no game play proof that mages are under constant threat of demonic possession and must be kept captive lest possession happen in the wild, so to speak.  If it something more than Chantry propaganda, then throw in a quest to show it.

As Ian and several others have pointed out, there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe the Chantry claims that mages who are allowed to run free are too dangerous.  They live freely in several game societies and the rare abomination among them is dealt with and everyone moves on.  If it truly was a common enough occurrence to jusify locking up all mages by default, then societies without circles should have been wiped out by now.

DA2 shows several trained mages who buckle from the pressure and goes "Rawr! Kill them all!". It also shows sane mages, who are simply twisted by their desire. DA2 pretty much should serve to show the dangers of magic, when taken to an extreme. Yet somehow, we are still needing to listen to dismissals of this, because it was "certain unfavorable conditions for the mages". But those who dismisses it, simply refuse to realize that DA2 should be seen as the worst case scenario. Kirkwall is a unique case, but it won't neccesarily remain so, if magic is ever "released".

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
DA2 shows several trained mages who buckle from the pressure and goes "Rawr! Kill them all!". It also shows sane mages, who are simply twisted by their desire. DA2 pretty much should serve to show the dangers of magic, when taken to an extreme. Yet somehow, we are still needing to listen to dismissals of this, because it was "certain unfavorable conditions for the mages". But those who dismisses it, simply refuse to realize that DA2 should be seen as the worst case scenario. Kirkwall is a unique case, but it won't neccesarily remain so, if magic is ever "released".

Which fully trained mages accidentally, with no pressure from Templars or threat of death, buckle under the pressure?  Who becomes an abomination while just wandering down the street wondering what to have for dinner?

My question is relevant to the idea that no mage can ever be trusted, no matter how well trained they are because supposedly demons are always there, waiting to attack them when distracted or asleep.  This notion is completely different from a mage who purposely makes a deal with a demon due to some circumstance - like being hunted down to the last dhild during an RoA - which we may not agree with, but isn't accidental.

I want to know why some folks think you can justify keeping trained mages who've passed their harrowing locked up for life.

[Xilizhra]

You know... Connor as an abomination wasn't really that powerful. I doubt he could have done those village-demolishing scenarios personally, anyway; the real threat was that it could summon a lot more demons to animate the corpse army (though where so many undead came from when Andrastians burn their dead, I really can't say). The only abominations we've seen to match the Chantry's Codex propaganda in terms of personal power are, I believe, Uldred and Marethari. Few demons are that powerful, and it stands to reason that few abominations are as well.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xilizhra wrote...

You know... Connor as an abomination wasn't really that powerful. I doubt he could have done those village-demolishing scenarios personally, anyway; the real threat was that it could summon a lot more demons to animate the corpse army (though where so many undead came from when Andrastians burn their dead, I really can't say). The only abominations we've seen to match the Chantry's Codex propaganda in terms of personal power are, I believe, Uldred and Marethari. Few demons are that powerful, and it stands to reason that few abominations are as well.

Its a case of gameplay=/=lore. Like, how Hawke and the Warden can chomp abominations for breakfast and crap em out at lunch like its nothing. From the lore, this should not happen so easily, but because the PC and gameplay/plot demands it, well... (not to mention the summoning of abominations out of thin air seems to directly contradict alot of things in the lore)

Anyways, gameplay aside, abominations are pretty dangerous. I do not disagree with even the Chantry on that part. I debate the actual frequency of abominations shown in DA2. I do not believe, for example, a mage having a bad hair day is going to go "bwahahaha, summonz sum demonz!" or other nonsense.

And Connor was especially dangerous. The destruction at Redcliffe was not due to him being a powerful mage, but host to a powerful demon. And I see no reason why Connor/demon combo could not be responsible for all the problems at Redcliffe. That's what made that whole scenario particularly well written/developed. It showed the dangers of an untrained, innocent mage, a child, and the damage they could do unintentionally. Of course, there are numerous other factors involved in that mess, but in general, it showed a better pro-Circle arguement than we were given in DA2. It offered a reasonable counter-balance, I think.

[senior caliente]

The way mages where portaited in DA2 whas like every whas bad, and a walking timebomb

Modifié par senior caliente, 30 août 2011 - 11:18 .

[TEWR]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

You know... Connor as an abomination wasn't really that powerful. I doubt he could have done those village-demolishing scenarios personally, anyway; the real threat was that it could summon a lot more demons to animate the corpse army (though where so many undead came from when Andrastians burn their dead, I really can't say). The only abominations we've seen to match the Chantry's Codex propaganda in terms of personal power are, I believe, Uldred and Marethari. Few demons are that powerful, and it stands to reason that few abominations are as well.

Its a case of gameplay=/=lore. Like, how Hawke and the Warden can chomp abominations for breakfast and crap em out at lunch like its nothing. From the lore, this should not happen so easily, but because the PC and gameplay/plot demands it, well... (not to mention the summoning of abominations out of thin air seems to directly contradict alot of things in the lore)

Anyways, gameplay aside, abominations are pretty dangerous. I do not disagree with even the Chantry on that part. I debate the actual frequency of abominations shown in DA2. I do not believe, for example, a mage having a bad hair day is going to go "bwahahaha, summonz sum demonz!" or other nonsense.

And Connor was especially dangerous. The destruction at Redcliffe was not due to him being a powerful mage, but host to a powerful demon. And I see no reason why Connor/demon combo could not be responsible for all the problems at Redcliffe. That's what made that whole scenario particularly well written/developed. It showed the dangers of an untrained, innocent mage, a child, and the damage they could do unintentionally. Of course, there are numerous other factors involved in that mess, but in general, it showed a better pro-Circle arguement than we were given in DA2. It offered a reasonable counter-balance, I think.

John Epler actually addressed this a while back saying that Abominations definitely shouldn't be drunken bastards (paraphrasing), and maybe should use magic sporadically in the future

http://social.biowar...index/7757660/1

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Indeed, diversity is interesting.

Not only that, but strengthens an arguement, when you have multiple angles that it can be argued from. Practical vs Ethical considerations, and I tend to fall in the middle, as I see many ways practical/pragmatic arguements overlap with ethical. Like, perhaps training and raising mages in a less absolutist, one way in/no way out system like the current one might also improve their ability to be useful, productive members of society. And make them more willing to participate, as well, I think. Disgruntled, wary, pissed off or mentally unstable mages aren't really useful to anyone, and that seems to be mostly what the Chantry system produces.

In the end, for me, it comes down to the Chantry and their current system being an epic fail on all fronts, and before any reasonable solution/replacement system can be brought about, the Chantry must be removed from the picture, in terms of legal and social authroity in this matter. They have proven themselves to be too backwards and incapable of change/adaptation on any meaningful level, and is why I think they should be relieved of power. This goes beyond mages and templars, the Chantry has failed elsewhere too.

[GavrielKay]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
It showed the dangers of an untrained, innocent mage, a child, and the damage they could do unintentionally. Of course, there are numerous other factors involved in that mess, but in general, it showed a better pro-Circle arguement than we were given in DA2. It offered a reasonable counter-balance, I think.

The Connor storyline was excellent for proving that young mages really do need to be trained.  How and by who are a much bigger debate though.  I quite liked the Redcliffe storyline and the many paths the Warden could take through it.

[Xilizhra]

Its a case of gameplay=/=lore. Like, how Hawke and the Warden can chomp abominations for breakfast and crap em out at lunch like its nothing. From the lore, this should not happen so easily, but because the PC and gameplay/plot demands it, well... (not to mention the summoning of abominations out of thin air seems to directly contradict alot of things in the lore)

The vast majority of the "lore" we're given about things like this is written by the Chantry, and they have a vested interest in making abominations seem more dangerous than they are. I take it with several grains of salt, especially given how much it contradicts what we've actually seen.

[TEWR]

Xilizhra wrote...

Its a case of gameplay=/=lore. Like, how Hawke and the Warden can chomp abominations for breakfast and crap em out at lunch like its nothing. From the lore, this should not happen so easily, but because the PC and gameplay/plot demands it, well... (not to mention the summoning of abominations out of thin air seems to directly contradict alot of things in the lore)

The vast majority of the "lore" we're given about things like this is written by the Chantry, and they have a vested interest in making abominations seem more dangerous than they are. I take it with several grains of salt, especially given how much it contradicts what we've actually seen.

It seems that the truly powerful Abominations are due to those mages who can affect the world in a profound way, and they attract the more powerful demons. Like how Uldred the Senior Enchanter had a lot of authority in the Circle or how Connor was the son of an Arl, so he had access to the halls of power.

Conversely, newly created Abominations seem to be coming to grips with the mage's powers, though they may end up using magic in an uncontrolled fashion.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xilizhra wrote...

The vast majority of the "lore" we're given about things like this is written by the Chantry, and they have a vested interest in making abominations seem more dangerous than they are. I take it with several grains of salt, especially given how much it contradicts what we've actually seen.

The Chantry aren't the only ones, though. Merril says, I think, that when Dalish keepers go abomination, they hunt them down quickly and kill them. And as I said, I take the gameplay with a grain of salt, since it also tends to clash against lore on other issues. That abominations are very dangerous and powerful creatures, however, is shown in general. There are  exceptions to the rule, depending on how one views Flemmeth, for example. But in general, I think the lore is correct. And there are examples in plot that back this up rather well, like the Broken Circle quest in Origins, Connor, and possibly Feniryil.

I don't think it's Chantry propoganda to state abominations are incredibly dangerous things, as I've seen enough evidence they are. I think the Chantry overstates the frequency of abominations, as well as just how suscpetible mages are, in general.

[Xilizhra]

The Chantry aren't the only ones, though. Merril says, I think, that when Dalish keepers go abomination, they hunt them down quickly and kill them.

Well, yeah. A single darkspawn isn't much of a threat either, but you wouldn't want it hanging around.

And there are examples in plot that back this up rather well, like the Broken Circle quest in Origins, Connor, and possibly Feniryil.

I don't really think so. Connor didn't have a lot of personal power and was relying on a bunch of lesser demons to do the dirty work, Uldred was possessed by what seemed to be one of the more powerful of the most powerful type of demon (there were plenty of lesser abominations as well), and Fenyriel was an extremely special mage. These are the famous examples of abomination breakouts, but they definitely seem to be the exception and not the rule.

[Ryzaki]

A single darkspawn is plenty of a threat.

It can taint people. Thus why I never let the Architect's lackey go. He roams around helping people yes but he also taints them and makes them sick. Worse part? It's not intentional.  

Modifié par Ryzaki, 31 août 2011 - 12:58 .