1253 replies to this topic

[KnightofPhoenix]

thats1evildude wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

And Orsino dealing with Quentin felt even more stupid.

I don't really see why people have such a problem with this. Quentin's research yielded some potentially powerful weapons in the battle against the templars. Orsino was readying for an eventual confrontation with Meredith. Therefore, Orsino kept Quentin's activities a secret.

How is the Harvester a powerful weapon? What was he planing to do with it? Take over Kirkwall? And then what?
How many mages would he have to kill to make several Harvesters?

The harvester is not only useless and is not even a weapon, but it's counter-productive. It would increase the perception that mages are lunatic self-destructive idiots who would harm everyone else in the process. That's not even mentionning being unable to control the harvester.

[GavrielKay]

thats1evildude wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

And Orsino dealing with Quentin felt even more stupid.

I don't really see why people have such a problem with this. Quentin's research yielded some potentially powerful weapons in the battle against the templars. Orsino was readying for an eventual confrontation with Meredith. Therefore, Orsino kept Quentin's activities a secret.

I don't remember Orsino being presented as readying for much of anything.  He seemed to be hanging on to whatever rights he could for the mages by the skin of his teeth.  Getting involved with a renegade necromancer is odd.  Where's the back story of how they even knew each other?  Where is Orsino's motivation to do something that if he was caught at it would give Meredith hard evidence of bad faith on the part of the First Enchanter himself?

[Dave of Canada]

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

Edited by Dave of Canada, 29 August 2011 - 05:53 PM.

[thats1evildude]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

How is the Harvester a powerful weapon? What was he planing to do with it? Take over Kirkwall? And then what?
How many mages would he have to kill to make several Harvesters?

1) It's a very powerful monster. I think if it had more time, it would have gotten stronger by adding to its mass with more corpses, much like the Harvester of GoA.
2) At both points in the story where Orsino becomes a Harvester, he's lost all hope of actually defeating Meredith. It's sort of a Godzilla solution to a hopeless situation; he unleashes the Harvester fully expecting that it will slaughter everyone in the Gallows.

GavrielKay wrote...

I don't remember Orsino being presented as readying for much of anything.  He seemed to be hanging on to whatever rights he could for the mages by the skin of his teeth.

Sort of. I got the vibe that while Orsino was trying to allay the conflict, he was also getting ready for an eventual confrontation.

Edited by thats1evildude, 29 August 2011 - 06:00 PM.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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

And clearly everything the Templars do is justified. They can never be wrong, and if they are, the plot will make them right.

[Xilizhra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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

By and large, yes.

[KnightofPhoenix]

thats1evildude wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

How is the Harvester a powerful weapon? What was he planing to do with it? Take over Kirkwall? And then what?
How many mages would he have to kill to make several Harvesters?

1) It's a very powerful monster. I think if it had more time, it would have gotten stronger by adding to its mass with more corpses, much like the Harvester of GoA.
2) At both points in the story where Orsino becomes a Harvester, he's lost all hope of actually defeating Meredith. It's sort of a Godzilla solution to a hopeless situation; he unleashes the Harvester fully expecting that it will slaughter everyone in the Gallows.

1) a monster that cannot be controlled. It's not a viable weapon. It's just a last FU

2) Yes, but that only makes what people think of mages worse and in the process justify Meredith more.
There were many ways Orsino could have slowed the Templars down to buy time for others to retreat, without looking like a lunatic.

[Dave of Canada]

Just want to point out the double standard.

Evil and insane Templar = ALL TEMPLAR ARE EVIL AND INSANE
Evil and insane Mages = The game is anti-mage and shows the mages in an unrealistic light!

[thats1evildude]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

1) a monster that cannot be controlled. It's not a viable weapon. It's just a last FU

Yup! Much in the same way that bombs do not differentiate between good people and bad. But they're still effective weapons.

I don't think Orsino really cared about too much about PR at that stage in the game. His charges — basically, his adopted children, as the First Enchanter is like a father to the younger mages of the Circle —  were being slaughtered. Hence, he turned himself into a suicide bomb-shaped monster.

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

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

And clearly everything the Templars do is justified. They can never be wrong, and if they are, the plot will make them right.

Did he say that? Did the plot give any indication that the templars were totally justified in their actions?

Everyone gets so butthurt over a few bad mages. Nobody ever complains about evil templars, though, because they're always wrong about everything.

Edited by thats1evildude, 29 August 2011 - 06:09 PM.

[TEWR]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Just want to point out the double standard.

Evil and insane Templar = ALL TEMPLAR ARE EVIL AND INSANE
Evil and insane Mages = The game is anti-mage and shows the mages in an unrealistic light!

I wish DAII had shown us more good Templars. They didn't show very many. Thrask, Keran, and Emeric. And two of them died, while the third can be killed.

[Dave of Canada]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I wish DAII had shown us more good Templars. They didn't show very many. Thrask, Keran, and Emeric. And two of them died, while the third can be killed.

Technically, same could be said about mages.

Bethany and... umm... Emile (sort of, depending if you believe him) and... umm... Feynriel (bigger maybe, depending on how you feel with him after seeing his powers in action and hope he doesn't abuse them)?

Edited by Dave of Canada, 29 August 2011 - 06:06 PM.

[Harid]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Just want to point out the double standard.

Evil and insane Templar = ALL TEMPLAR ARE EVIL AND INSANE
Evil and insane Mages = The game is anti-mage and shows the mages in an unrealistic light!

Yeah.  Makes arguing on these forums tiresome.  Only a few posters rise above this oversimplification.

[KnightofPhoenix]

thats1evildude wrote...
Everyone gets so butthurt over a few bad mages. Nobody ever complains about evil templars, though, because they're always wrong about everything.

I think Ser Alrik was a missed opportunity. He could have been like say William Striker, instead we got rapist pervert na-zi caricature.

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Corypheus could affect normal people? Then why did the Carta corrupt themselves with the taint to listen to him?

*facepalm*

What makes you think a normal person would corrupt themselves with the taint of their own volition?

edit: Grey Wardens don't count for the point I'm making. You're saying the Carta Dwarves just tainted themselves for ****s and giggles.

Edited by The Ethereal Writer Redux, 29 August 2011 - 06:10 PM.

[Xilizhra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Just want to point out the double standard.

Evil and insane Templar = ALL TEMPLAR ARE EVIL AND INSANE
Evil and insane Mages = The game is anti-mage and shows the mages in an unrealistic light!

Mages=biological condition.
Templars=religious army.

Templar leader built up through whole game as highly villainous.
Mage leader becomes villainous purely because the devs thought another boss fight was necessary.

Only templar who's actually, maybe, insane is Alrik, aside from Meredith. Karras is just a douchebag. Roderick might count, but he's harmless.

Yeah. Makes arguing on these forums tiresome. Only a few posters rise above this oversimplification.

Yes, what a crying shame that some people can't accept genocide apologia.

Edited by Xilizhra, 29 August 2011 - 06:09 PM.

[TEWR]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I wish DAII had shown us more good Templars. They didn't show very many. Thrask, Keran, and Emeric. And two of them died, while the third can be killed.

Technically, same could be said about mages.

Bethany and... umm... Emile (sort of, depending if you believe him) and... umm... Feynriel (bigger maybe, depending on how you feel with him after seeing his powers in action and hope he doesn't abuse them)?

True. That's what I'm arguing for here. I don't mind some mages being insane, so long as the insanity is done right. And I don't mind some Templars being evil (or in Kirkwall's case, most Templars since many believe the Chantry dogma even more fanatically than most). I just want both sides to be portrayed better. Show the good and bad of both sides.

[whykikyouwhy]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I wish DAII had shown us more good Templars. They didn't show very many. Thrask, Keran, and Emeric. And two of them died, while the third can be killed.

Technically, same could be said about mages.

Bethany and... umm... Emile (sort of, depending if you believe him) and... umm... Feynriel (bigger maybe, depending on how you feel with him after seeing his powers in action and hope he doesn't abuse them)?

As far as templars go, you have potential sympathetic characters in both Cullen and Carver (depending on what path you take with him).

With mages, you could include Alain, and several shopkeepers. (But I suspect Solivitus is up to something.)

[thats1evildude]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I think Ser Alrik was a missed opportunity. He could have been like say William Striker, instead we got rapist pervert na-zi caricature.

As I said before, any conflict like this is bound to attract extremists on both sides. If we got truly evil mages like Quentin, then we needed truly evil templars like Alrik.

Edited by thats1evildude, 29 August 2011 - 06:13 PM.

[TEWR]

alex90c wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I'm not so sure that Bioware was trying to sway anyone one way or the other, or merely displaying common human behavior and perception.

Bioware's developers admitted to trying to sway people, which was given as the reason why Orsino was dealing with Quentin. David Gaider has also said that he felt that people sided with mages "almost by default."

Don't forget that the developers made Orsino turn on Hawke "because they wanted another boss battle".

I mean really, if they wanted the Harvester boss battle they just needed to have a Pride demon tear apart the thin Veil (literally tear it apart. And say "Heres.... Johnny!") and possess a mage corpse. Then he does the ritual and becomes a Harvester.

The ritual itself was blood magic, so a demon would know about it since they know about blood magic.

I can't really say I'd be a fan of even more demons, plus the complete trivialising of desire and pride demons in DA2 since Hawke just kills truckloads of them. The whole "thin veil" crap is getting old too. They could have, I dunno ... just not made Orsino a boss battle.

I'd rather have a demon do the ritual in a corpse than have Orsino turn, and Orsino would help defeat the Harvester. Or have Orsino not do the ritual at all.

No one was happy with what happened because it made no sense, and it's for that reason I think Bioware needs to retcon Orsino's death. Even if you kill all of the Templars and save all of the mages, they die from a sudden heartattack brought on by a fungal infection of the big toe. At the same time.

[Xilizhra]

Filament wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...


Templar leader built up through whole game as highly villainous.

She wasn't really built up as a villain in the first two acts, just a hard ass. The third act is when they started building her up as an unhinged, dangerous hard ass.

Even her own recruits found it plausible that she was killing people in an initiation ritual. In Act 1. This doesn't speak to me of an earned decent reputation.

[KnightofPhoenix]

thats1evildude wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I think Ser Alrik was a missed opportunity. He could have been like say William Striker, instead we got rapist pervert na-zi caricature.

As I said before, any conflict like this is bound to attract extremists on both sides. If we got truly evil mages like Quentin, then we needed truly evil templars like Alrik.

We should not have had "truly evil" characters in the first place imo (unless they are really willing to explore insanity in depth and not use it as a simple plot device). I'd much rather they focus on making reasonable compelling characters which through them, we could see the overall trends and changes on the macro-level. Extremism =/= insanity. It's much more complicated and could be explored without lunatics like Quentin or under-developped caricatures like Alrik.

In other words, a real build up to a real conflict. Not the debacle we got.

Edited by KnightofPhoenix, 29 August 2011 - 06:17 PM.

[GavrielKay]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Just want to point out the double standard.

Evil and insane Templar = ALL TEMPLAR ARE EVIL AND INSANE
Evil and insane Mages = The game is anti-mage and shows the mages in an unrealistic light!

And if the game had asked the player to choose between exterminating all the Templars OR all the mages based on the few evil ones of each that we see, then you'd have a point.