1253 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

Urzon wrote...

I really hope that the next dlcs will give us some more insight into what was happening with the other Circles in the last 10 years. Something big must have been going down in the Circles while we were in Kirkwall. It takes alot of fear or anger to inspire all the mages in Thedas to think and all out open revolt against the templar and Chantry might be in their best interest.

All I can think to cause that is either a super-Uldred type figure, or the new Divine was going to put in place some new "policies" that might not agree with the mages (or their health).

All this guessing without alot of knowing is growing tiresome.

I remember Wynne said in Awakening that the Libertarians and their supporters were thinking of pulling away from the Chantry and Circles entirely in regards to a meeting of the College of Magi in Cumberland, Nevarra.

That's really all the additional information we currently have to go on though.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 31 août 2011 - 04:59 .

[SkittlesKat96]

I know for sure that if magic existed in real life during the dark ages or medieval ages all the mages would be upstanding blokes and wouldn't do such horrible things and wouldn't do insane things for their freedoms even if they had the potential magic to do so

[Follow Me on Twitter]

But thats the real world not Thedas. They are different no matter how many times certain people try to argue it, their views on how people can and should be treated are very different.

Modifié par Follow Me on Twitter, 31 août 2011 - 02:32 .

[IanPolaris]

PuppyFlavour wrote...

SkittlesKat96 wrote...

I know for sure that if magic existed in real life during the dark ages or medieval ages all the mages would be upstanding blokes and wouldn't do such horrible things and wouldn't do insane things for their freedoms even if they had the potential magic to do so

My sarcasm-detector goes off, but I say you have a point. If magic existed in real life during those ages, anyone wielding it would probably be burned on a stake before they had the chance to do much harm. If you look at the witch-huntings back then, the Chantry is rather tame in comparison to its real-life equivalent.

All of which has nothing to do with Dragon Age Two.  That would be like saying that killing and enslaving millions of people of an opposing religion is morally good choice in a game because the Crusaders did that during the Middle Ages.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

-Polaris

[Follow Me on Twitter]

I did not know being a mage is having a completely different faith. The more you know.

[IanPolaris]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

I did not know being a mage is having a completely different faith. The more you know.

Point.  Deliberately missing it.

My POINT is that our civilization and our moral sense as gamers has ADVANCED since the middle ages.  Civilization is morally better than it was then.  So you can not judge a decision to be morally grey to the MODERN GAMER by the standards of the middle ages.

Get it?

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

PuppyFlavour wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

All of which has nothing to do with Dragon Age Two.  That would be like saying that killing and enslaving millions of people of an opposing religion is morally good choice in a game because the Crusaders did that during the Middle Ages.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

-Polaris

I don't believe that my comment contained anything related to the moral goodness of the Circle/Right of Annulment?

Of course it did.  You are telling us that we must judge moral grey by the standards of the middle ages.  I reject that notion utterly.  The game is clearly targeted at modern morality and includes many modern moral concepts including that of genocide (see Wynne DAA), so modern moral standards for morally grey choices need to apply.

Now if you want to roleplay an evil character that makes evil but correct in-character choices, more power to you, but don't pretend it's morally grey.

-Polaris

[Big I]

PuppyFlavour wrote...

SkittlesKat96 wrote...

I know for sure that if magic existed in real life during the dark ages or medieval ages all the mages would be upstanding blokes and wouldn't do such horrible things and wouldn't do insane things for their freedoms even if they had the potential magic to do so

My sarcasm-detector goes off, but I say you have a point. If magic existed in real life during those ages, anyone wielding it would probably be burned on a stake before they had the chance to do much harm. If you look at the witch-huntings back then, the Chantry is rather tame in comparison to its real-life equivalent.

What I don't understand is why in societies without (reputable) doctors the only reliable medical professionals, mages, are kept in prisons in the middle of nowhere.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

I did not know being a mage is having a completely different faith. The more you know.

No, it's a genetic condition people are born with. Which, pretty much makes it just as bad. Less like the Crusades, then, and more like the Third Reich's attitudes and handling of people born with some genetic defect, like downs syndrome, schitzophrenea cystic fibrosis, ect. Somewhat similar in principle and perceptive concept. Though the Chantry offically isn't as extreme as the Na zis were, alot of their policies regarding mages have numerous similarities in practice and principle.

[IanPolaris]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

But thats the real world not Thedas. They are different no matter how many times certain people try to argue it, their views on how people can and should be treated are very different.

Doesn't matter.  The person playing the game is a modern person from a modern society.  If you wanted to say, "This is how my backwards midaeval word treats mages."  That would be one thing.  I'd be hip with that.

However, Bioware and DG in particular tried to take this a step too far.  They are trying to tell US the modern gamer gamer (not the actual character) that acts that would qualify as 'genocide' by pretty much any modern standard can be morally justified.   That is appealing to modern morality, and thus modern moral standards apply.  If Bioware didn't keep insisting that this was, "really it was", some kind of 'morally grey' choice, this wouldn't be an issue.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

I did not know being a mage is having a completely different faith. The more you know.

No, it's a genetic condition people are born with. Which, pretty much makes it just as bad. Less like the Crusades, then, and more like the Third Reich's attitudes and handling of people born with some genetic defect, like downs syndrome, schitzophrenea cystic fibrosis, ect. Somewhat similar in principle and perceptive concept. Though the Chantry offically isn't as extreme as the Na zis were, alot of their policies regarding mages have numerous similarities in practice and principle.

I know that, but I was trying to keep the comparison as far away from the "Nasties" (as Churchill called them) as possible.  Godwin's law and all.

-Polaris

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

IanPolaris wrote...

I know that, but I was trying to keep the comparison as far away from the "Nasties" (as Churchill called them) as possible.  Godwin's law and all.

-Polaris

Hmm, yeah. Difficult though, because we have so few cases in the real world with what to compare it too. There were numerous eugenics type "genetic purity" movements then, that were common in the early 20th century who had basic similar ideas of what to do with "genetically substandard people". There were also numerous US states that practiced things like this, like forced lobotmies and sterilzations of undersirables.

There, perhaps it is a better comparison.

[Follow Me on Twitter]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

I did not know being a mage is having a completely different faith. The more you know.

No, it's a genetic condition people are born with. Which, pretty much makes it just as bad. Less like the Crusades, then, and more like the Third Reich's attitudes and handling of people born with some genetic defect, like downs syndrome, schitzophrenea cystic fibrosis, ect. Somewhat similar in principle and perceptive concept. Though the Chantry offically isn't as extreme as the Na zis were, alot of their policies regarding mages have numerous similarities in practice and principle.

Sarcasm does not work online i suppose.

Murder and Genocide are two different things.

If you want morally grey then think of it as "Help the templars stop THIS circle and avoid risking the divine slaughtering this entire town and any other circles" or "Save these mages and risk it all"

[LobselVith8]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Never mind, no point in arguing. Mages are innocent victims who deserve sunshine and flowers.

I'd settle for mages not being depicted as insane and stupid.

I'm just curious...and I do mean this truly...is there any character that you feel was depicted in a positive light, or as intelligent? Because you have, in other threads, made some similar assertions regarding Hawke. So I'm wondering who is your example of a character done right in DA2.

Because I personally didn't see all mages as insane and/or stupid.

I thought Merrill was an intelligent and proactive character. She was dealing with culture shock when it came to human culture, but she handled magic and blood magic responsibly; she was adept enough with her powers to distinquish that the Profane Abomination was a Hunger Demon; she could tell that Keran was not possessed by a demon; she studied lore about the Eluvian and extrapolated information from the shard she took from Ferelden (according to Gaider). Merrill may have been wrong about the Eluvian, but she was proactive in trying to help the People - right or wrong, she saw the plight her people were going through, and was trying to do something to change it.

[Follow Me on Twitter]

She was also willing to risk any life to make it happen. Her keeper was killed because of it and depending on your choices her clan had to be killed or they pushed her out entirely away from her people.

Merrill came off to me as completely naive about magic and a recipe for tragedy soup.

Modifié par Follow Me on Twitter, 31 août 2011 - 03:10 .

[IanPolaris]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

I did not know being a mage is having a completely different faith. The more you know.

No, it's a genetic condition people are born with. Which, pretty much makes it just as bad. Less like the Crusades, then, and more like the Third Reich's attitudes and handling of people born with some genetic defect, like downs syndrome, schitzophrenea cystic fibrosis, ect. Somewhat similar in principle and perceptive concept. Though the Chantry offically isn't as extreme as the Na zis were, alot of their policies regarding mages have numerous similarities in practice and principle.

Sarcasm does not work online i suppose.

Murder and Genocide are two different things.

If you want morally grey then think of it as "Help the templars stop THIS circle and avoid risking the divine slaughtering this entire town and any other circles" or "Save these mages and risk it all"

Are mages treated and treat themselves as a different class or race of people?  check
Does Meredith want to eliminate them all  in a particular geographic down to the last child?  check
Is being a mage a condition that is beyond the power of choice?  check
Does Meredith want to eliminate them just because they are mages?  very much check

It's both murder and genocide.  You can do geneocide in a limited area and still have it be genocide.

-Polaris

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...


Sarcasm does not work online i suppose.

Murder and Genocide are two different things.

If you want morally grey then think of it as "Help the templars stop THIS circle and avoid risking the divine slaughtering this entire town and any other circles" or "Save these mages and risk it all"

I was aware it was sarcasm. Which was what my response was, in a way.

Anyways, I'm not going to get into the genocide arguement, its not really important.

Yet  it's not really even a morally grey/questionable area for me, it's a question of siding with insanity vs insanity. It doesn't even really come down to a moral arguement for me, but one of siding with a weak, broken, incompetant system that fails destructively at leadership.

Here's how I look at siding weith the templars. Meredith is using Anders action as an excuse to do what she's been itching to do for a while. The Circle was uninvolved in Anders actions. He was a lone nut, of that I am certain  (well, not quite lone, given Justice) and I've seen no evidence that suggests otherwise.

The people in Kirkwall were rioting and demanding blood for what Anders did. Meredith thinks slaughtering an entire tower of people innocent of the crime, their only connection being they were mages too. In otherwords, she is not only giving in to mob rule, but she is allowing the mob anger to be utilized against people not involved. This alone makes it impossible to side with Meredith for me. Because if she is going to give into mob rule in such an extreme way, she has failed as a leader and templar, and the system has already irreversably melted down anyway. Anyone with half a brain knows one of the ten commandments of politics and the art of ruling is to never let the mob dictacte actions or policy. Especially when the mob's bloodthirst can be dissipated generally by publically and gruesomely executing Anders publically. And well, it's not like he's really resisting arrest or execution.....

A similar example we had in awakening, where the use of force or threats are required to keep peasant rebellions down and from becoming a problem. You do not coddle a revolt. Especially citizens running amok demanding they be granted "law enforcement" privilages.

A real world example would be post 9/11. There were a number of people ranting and wanting to kill every Arab or Muslim in sight, despite their innocence in the attacks. There were a number of onprovoked assults, injuries, even murders of innocent people. However, what Meredith is doing would be like the white house deciding the best way to appease popular anger and resentment would be to start killing anyone who was Muslim or looked like it. Both to send a message to our "enemies" as well as appeal to popular anger.

I don't think I need to point out why this would be an idiotic and epic fail thing to do. Which is mainly how I see Meredith and choosing to side with her. At that point, I don't even care that Orsino and a number of other are blood mages. The situation has gone past the point of no return, and Meredith becomes a dangerous, incompetant psychopath that must be removed before either side can be dealt with in a more logical manner.

That's how I see it, moral arguements aside. It comes down with siding with potential anarchy vs epic fail. I'll take my chances with anarchy in this case, since Meredith is in effect, practicing a more dangerous support of anarchy.

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

Why shouldn't we continue to run into insane mages?

Because running into insane mages who have motivations that make no sense is silly (in my humble opinion). How am I supposed to take the story seriously when Decimus wants to murder my apostate Hawke and his elven and dwarven friends because he thinks they are templars? How am I supposed to take the story seriously when I have purple lips Tarohne looking and sounding like a raving lunatic? Why should I take the story seriously when Grace wants to murder Hawke for helping her and opposing Meredith's rule? Is it too much to ask for to get mage antagonists who make sense? Can't we get some coherent mage antagonists?

TJPags wrote...

In all seriousness, the game's lore tells us that mages have issues from travelling into the fade, dealing with it when they sleep, demon temptation, etc.

They have the Harrowing to give apprentices a test of demon temptation. If it was as frequent as you think, what would be the purpose of the Harrowing?

TJPags wrote...

Whether it's because of all that, or because of how they're treated, or how they're taught to view themselves (yes, for this instance I'll give credence to the concept that the Chantry's teachings and the Circles may help to unhinge mages) or because that particular mage just happens to be a bit unbalanced anyway, why shouldn't we see insane mages?

The question being posed is whether we will see nothing but insane mages. It's not even like insanity is limited to the mages in the narrative - look at how Meredith loses her mind so Hawke can fight her, regardless of whether the Champion sided with the mages or the templars. I don't find insane antagonists compelling - for a story that's supposed to be about the dichotomy between the mages and the templars, the only good reasons to side with either group are found on the messageboards instead of the story.

TJPags wrote...

We should - often. Particularly outside the Tower, where they are on their own, likely scared of being found/caught, perhaps a bit paranoid about it.

There are plenty of people in the real world who have been scared of getting captured by a military organization hunting people like them, and they didn't become raving idiots as a result.

TJPags wrote...

Maybe, instead of DA2 going overboard by showing us insane mages, DAO and DAA went overboard by NOT showing us insane mages . . . .

Dragon Age 2 went overboard by giving us insane lunatics, and doing so in examples that contradicted lore - like seeing Thrask's daughter become an abomination when she was still conscious in the real world or the mage who becomes an abomination at the end of Act III as the templars surround her, which the lore behind Aeonar tells us is impossible, because mages aren't conscious in the real world when they enter the Fade, which is why the Tevinter mages were all slaughtered at Aeonar when all but one was in the Fade. As the codex on Aeonar attests to:

"Whatever it was the Tevinter were trying to discover at Aeonar, their work was never completed. The fortress was overrun by disciples of Andraste upon hearing the news of her death. According to legend, it was a massacre-eerily silent, for the invaders caught the mages while all but one of them were in the Fade."

Modifié par LobselVith8, 31 août 2011 - 03:24 .

[Follow Me on Twitter]

I do not want to touch the genocide subject it is way too touchy.

Im just going to look at the end game choice as this " You can kill these innocent people or you can do this and the repercussions would be more innocents dying" Innocents were going to be killed regardless of choice. Again all you can do at that point is try to damage control.

[IanPolaris]

Here is the bottom line (agreeing with Skadi). Whether you think of it as genocide or not, the fact is this:

You can not punish the obviously innocent (and especially not collectively punish the obviously innocent) for a crime that was clearly commited and obviously committed by another, and especially not in the face of an angry mob.

If you do, you forfeit all moral justice and the respect of the people (including said mob) of your ability to dispense moral justice pretty much forever.

That's one reason why such a thing is evil, pretty much period.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

I do not want to touch the genocide subject it is way too touchy.

Im just going to look at the end game choice as this " You can kill these innocent people or you can do this and the repercussions would be more innocents dying" Innocents were going to be killed regardless of choice. Again all you can do at that point is try to damage control.

Killing innocents especially in the face of a mob while ignoring the obviously guilty, completely compromises any moral leadership (and thus ability to lead) pretty much forevermore.  If you want to add "potentially killed" to the checklist, you'd better also add the innocents that Meredith will have to slaughter just to keep normal civil orders because of the unruly mob.

You DON'T coddle a mob.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

She was also willing to risk any life to make it happen.

Merrill wanted to risk her own life to make it happen; she even asked Hawke to kill her if her conversation with Audacity turned out for the worst.

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

Her keeper was killed because of it and depending on your choices her clan had to be killed or they pushed her out entirely away from her people.

Keeper Marethari was killed because she accepted a demon into her body and told no one about it, endangering her entire clan. The clan was killed if they try to murder Hawke and Merrill in cold blood if Hawke tells them the truth about what happened to their Keeper.

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

Merrill came off to me as completely naive about magic and a recipe for tragedy soup.

How is Merrill naive because she followed a possible lead that could have irrevocably changed the lives of every elf in Thedas for the better? Merrill was dealing with a two thousand year old technology that baffled even the Tevinter Magisters. Merrill was even following the very premise of the Dalish, which is the restoration of their past.