1253 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

We meet, what? Four named Templars who are of questionable character?

Meredith, Cullen, Alrik, Karras, Varnell, the woman who tries to kill Hawke for defending himself from Karras, Mettin, the Templar who tortured a Dalish child for information on Feynriel and doesn't care about elven lives, and probably more.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 31 août 2011 - 11:22 .

[IanPolaris]

GavrielKay wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
So you've got 3 important Templars who range from being fairly pro-mage to really pro-mage. I'd say most of the Templars would support Alistair going Church of England. Those that didn't would most likely leave for Orlais.

I think it would be safer to say you've got a few Templars who are pro-sanity.  They aren't extremists and are willing to actually think about a situation and act in a way that makes sense.  We don't see nearly enough of that in DA2.

Exactly, and given the choice between swearing Fealty to the Chantry of Denerim (Run by the King of Fereldan) and avoiding a needless conflict with mages while being permitted to exercise many of his duties protecting and regulating mages and magic, or getting involved in a conflict he is likely to lose (at least in the short run) in Fereldan (facing down the mages AND the Fereldan royal army), I'd say that KC Gegoire and most of the rest of Fereldan's templars will swear fealty to the new Chantry of Denerim (i.e. Go "Church of England").  It's the sane choice that preserves both sides.

-Polaris

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

That Thedas does not develop is not because of the Chantry preventing all technological and medical advancement. It is because Thedas has come to depend on magic. Look at it. The Dwarves and Qunari share one trait. Mages does not play a huge part in their society, and they have both developed technological marvels. Thedas, however, has come to depend on its mages for all purposes. Why study medicine whena  amge can heal you? Why develop gunpowder when a mage can blow up your enemy just as well? Magic has held the Thedosian development back. The Chantry doesn't prevent it though. They wouldn't prevent a man from developing any sort of substitute for what a mage can do (quite the contrary probably), but they aren't encouraging it either. They simply let it happen.

magic holds a very limited and restricted influence in theodosian societies. Most are Andrastian, and thus, have Circles. Circles are limited in what they can do, subject to whatever the Chantry wants. Given it's limited application, it does not have any signifigant impact, not enough that it would create enough of a dependance on it. Plus, it's prevailence in Thedas as well as its capabilities are much more limited than in typical fantasy settings, where merchants ride around in flying magic chariots or horses, or whatever. So it's not like the use of magic has created anything that would suggest its use has replaced any necessities that would normally drive technological development or advancement. So no, I do not believe magic holds Thedas back. In fact, alot of medieval alchemists, who were often believed to be magicians or what not, did things that were considered magical (and probably heretical, given that many disguised or hid their writings). I'm willing to bet that a number of alchemical experiments performed by mages are also understood at their fundemental, basic physical principles.

In fact, walking around the Circle Library in witch hunt, a number of books in the Circle library were non-magical related, and of more scientific/purely scholarly leaning. There are far more than spells and spirits being studied in the Circles, if Ferelden's library is anything to go by.

Yet outside of the Circles, whose society is tightly restricted and controlled, I see nothing that suggests any tendancy towards encouraging scholarly research beyond religous history. In fact, the majority histories you get as a human character in Origins are from a a strong Chantry perspective, even the tone of some of Genetivi's writings. The only opposing versions you get is when you visit people outside of the Chantry's sway, like the dwarves and the dalish, who have their own different versions. Yet there are enough hints and clues to suggest this Chantry sourced history has alot of omissions and questionable versions of the truth, yet there seem to be few to no opposing views or versions to contrast with the offical chantry version. Except going beyond Andrastian borders.

The point of this, is that we already have plenty of suggestion the Chantry hides or limits a number of things, from doctrines like the canticle of Shartan (it is unlikely they are particularly worried about this particular heresy so much, since it doesn't really shake the foundation of Chantry faith, everyone knows elves helped Andraste against Tevinter, even in Chantry canon. However, if someone discovered something that would be in direct opposition, or even signifigant challenge, of currently held Chantry doctrines, you can bet your butt the Chantry would have that crushed and supressed.

Galileo just tried to tell people the Earth orbited the sun and not the other way around, and look what happened to him. Though his discoveries had a permanent and signifgant impact on us today, back then, the Church had him on house arrest for spreading such "nonsense." The Chantry of Thedas does not strike me as an organization that would be much different, at least in principle, towards similar actions.

If anything, given that the Divines past and present seem to think the answer to everything is an Exalted March, it makes me more inclined to think that the Chantry does not really hold learning and progress very highly.

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

However, whether or not Bioware wants to admit this or not, I take umbrage as should all other modern civilized, ethical people that the conclusions of Nuremberg, aren't established moral facts.  Basically whether bioware wants to admit it or not, moral facts DO exist (and yes facts can change over time but that doesn't make them any less factual) and one of those FACTS is that it is immoral to knowingly punish someone for the crime that you know somone else committed.  Especially when that punishment is genocide.

The fact that DA 2 frames the templar/mage (security vs freedom) conflict in contravention of established moral fact is what makes it bad writing all attempt to justify it make the bad writing even less believable and thus even worse!  That's why I say it's both. 

If you look at the Fereldan possible example, it is possible to frame exactly the same sort of moral question in a grey way without asking us to give up on accepted moral facts.

-Polaris

So your argument is not that if the writing were good, it could change your stance, but rather that if the writing were good, it wouldn't have set up the conflict to challenge a "moral fact" in the first place?

Well, I disagree. Take umbrage all you want, but I don't believe in moral facts, nor do I believe it is inherently bad writing to attempt to challenge a "moral fact". And because I am unwilling to argue this belief with you, we may be at an impasse.

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

So your argument is not that if the writing were good, it could change your stance, but rather that if the writing were good, it wouldn't have set up the conflict to challenge a "moral fact" in the first place?

Well, I disagree. Take umbrage all you want, but I don't believe in moral facts, nor do I believe it is inherently bad writing to attempt to challenge a "moral fact". And because I am unwilling to argue this belief with you, we may be at an impasse.

Killing someone without cause is immoral.  I HOPE everyone agrees that this is a moral fact.  A moral fact is no different than any other kind of fact.  It is a moral question which most (almost all) reasonable people agree on.  Likewise as a basic principle is it wrong to take what isn't yours.  This is another moral fact.  Moral facts are just like phyisical ones in this regard.

Punishing someone for something they did not do is wrong.  That is a moral fact.  Even three year old CHILDREN understand that.

Bioware should too.  If you have a story that attempts deny a basic moral fact that even three year old children recongize (and attempt to call it grey), then it is BAD WRITING pretty much period.

If you don't understand that somethings are morally wrong as facts as I've defined the terms above, then IMHO you are beyond any reasonable help or discussion.

-Polaris

Edit:  My point is that moral facts exist whether you (or anyone else) 'believe' in them or not just as physical facts do.  If they did not, society could not function.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 01 septembre 2011 - 12:37 .

[nynuwe]

David Gaider wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
Of course, if the OP's questions were ever answered, instead of mocked, perhaps they would cease. Then again, if you deliberately answered the questions in a way that would anger those poor stupid pro-mage posters, and they react very, very, very badly, you'd have the necessary pretext to bring out the ban-hammer.

Then you'd never see these threads again.

Have you not been on these forums long?

I've attempted to engage certain posters in a conversation on this subject before, and considering half the "evidence" brought up is a mixture of conjecture and subjective opinion the argument can and clearly does go around in circles ad infinitum. So, no, I see no need to answer more leading questions on the subject-- particularly when actual answers aren't being sought.

But feel free to continue the debate, if you like, provided everyone keeps the spittle and gesticulations to a minimum.

Gaider, no offense, but is it necesarry to see you mocking someone so openly? I don't frequent forums. And when I do I tend to avoid threads that are repeat topics. I am not jaded or frustrated by this issue, and I do not wish to be. But if I see someone trusted in the writting team mock someone else as if he were a passing troll and not a BioWare employee, I'd be pretty turned off. You are looked up as an example of forum behavior simply because you
police it. No one says its easy, but if you can't help but be unpolite
to the "annoyance" while replying, then maybe it is wise to consider
just not posting at all?

[Follow Me on Twitter]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

However, whether or not Bioware wants to admit this or not, I take umbrage as should all other modern civilized, ethical people that the conclusions of Nuremberg, aren't established moral facts.  Basically whether bioware wants to admit it or not, moral facts DO exist (and yes facts can change over time but that doesn't make them any less factual) and one of those FACTS is that it is immoral to knowingly punish someone for the crime that you know somone else committed.  Especially when that punishment is genocide.

The fact that DA 2 frames the templar/mage (security vs freedom) conflict in contravention of established moral fact is what makes it bad writing all attempt to justify it make the bad writing even less believable and thus even worse!  That's why I say it's both. 

If you look at the Fereldan possible example, it is possible to frame exactly the same sort of moral question in a grey way without asking us to give up on accepted moral facts.

-Polaris

So your argument is not that if the writing were good, it could change your stance, but rather that if the writing were good, it wouldn't have set up the conflict to challenge a "moral fact" in the first place?

Well, I disagree. Take umbrage all you want, but I don't believe in moral facts, nor do I believe it is inherently bad writing to attempt to challenge a "moral fact". And because I am unwilling to argue this belief with you, we may be at an impasse.

The dead end for most people it seems. 

[Urzon]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

We meet, what? Four named Templars who are of questionable character?

Meredith, Cullen, Alrik, Karras, Varnell, the woman who tries to kill Hawke for defending himself from Karras, Mettin, the Templar who tortured a Dalish child for information on Feynriel and doesn't care about elven lives, and probably more.

I'll agree with that whole list, other than Cullen. From DAO to DA2, he was caught inbetween to extremes. In DAO, he saw what some mages were willing to do to gain freedom. He saw mages turning to blood mages and deals with demons, and them killing anyone you got in the way (even other mages). They threw him into a barrier/cell and tortured him with who knows how many unimaginable things, most likely mentally and phyically.

In DA2, they threw him into the opposite side of the spectrum. Templars doing anything and everything to oppress mages. He saw the templars doing the same things to the mages that they did to him in Ferelden. I'm sure in Act 1 he reveled in it abit, divine justice if you will. But as the years went by and the treatment of mages got worse, i'm sure it started to take its toll on him. 

Cullen seem to be a mostly kind hearted person. Sure, he might be a religous ****** sometimes while the whole "divine right" thing, but he seen the worse of both side. He might be pro-circle, but at least he knows that their must be compromise on both side for their to be peace.

If he didn't get moved to Kirkwall, he could have easily turned into Meredith 2.0 at the Ferelden Circle.

I might be pro-mage, but i wouldn't mind seeing Cullen in DA3. He had more depth then all the templar in DA2. The only person you might have giving him a run for his money was Meredith, but we couldn't get much of her backstory before she went coo-coo for idol puffs. 

Modifié par Urzon, 01 septembre 2011 - 03:52 .

[dragonflight288]

I'll agree with that whole list, other than Cullen. From DAO to DA2, he was caught inbetween to extremes. In DAO, he saw what some mages were willing to do to gain freedom. He saw mages turning to blood mages and deals with demons, and them killing anyone you got in the way (even other mages). They threw him into a barrier/cell and tortured him with who know how many imaginable thing most likely mentally and phyically.

In DA2, they threw him into the opposite side of the spectrum. Templars doing anything and everything to oppress mages. He saw the templars doing the same things to the mages that they did to him in Ferelden. I'm sure in Act 1 he reveled in him abit, divine justice if you will. But as the years went by and the treatment of mages got worse, i'm sure it started to take its toll on him.

Cullen might be a religous ****** sometimes while the whole "divine right" thing, but he seen the worse of both side. He might be pro-circle, but at least he knows that their must be compromise on both side for their to be peace.

I might be pro-mage, but i wouldn't mind seeing Cullen in DA3. He had more depth then all the templar in DA2. The only person you might have giving him a run for his money was Meredith, but we couldn't get much of her backstory before she went coo-coo for idol puffs.

Hmm. A man who's seen the worst of both sides, who has significant rank. Great companion choice for DA 3. Likely, he can be swayed to either side by a persuasive Main Character because he's been on both sides of the fence.

[IanPolaris]

Urzon wrote...

I'll agree with that whole list, other than Cullen. From DAO to DA2, he was caught inbetween to extremes. In DAO, he saw what some mages were willing to do to gain freedom. He saw mages turning to blood mages and deals with demons, and them killing anyone you got in the way (even other mages). They threw him into a barrier/cell and tortured him with who knows how many unimaginable things, most likely mentally and phyically.

What?  Mr "Mages aren't people like you and me?"  He's just as bad as Meredith IMO.

-Polaris

[dragonflight288]

That's act 1. Give him another six years and suddenly he's still on friendly basis with a known apostate Hawke, listens to what he has to say.

Cullen isn't perfect. In Act 1, when he said that, he had only been away from Ferelden for what, a year? He hasn't seen the worst of the templars by that point. Neither has the gamers on their first playthrough. He's harsh, critical, and pretty dang prejudice and difficult to work with.

But he's also survived a traumatic experience.

....real life analogy. Sometimes people go through horrible tragedies. Rape, seeing their entire family murdered, racist hate crimes, gang fights, whatever. They are so emotionally scarred that they see everyone associated with what they perceived as guilty.

Cullen, at the very least, makes attempts to compromise, while staying true to the Circle.

I'm not vilifying nor defending him. Simply stating what happened in the game. People change over a decade after all. It's not improbable to think he may have.

[Urzon]

What?  Mr "Mages aren't people like you and me?"  He's just as bad as Meredith IMO.

-Polaris

Let me guess.... He said that after he was mind-raped by blood mages and demons?

Did you expect him to be pro-mage after he just see them kill all his friends and comrades, and they tortured him to the brink of insanity?

[IanPolaris]

I don't see signs of Cullen changing. He doesn't challenge Meredith's RoA even though he thinks (knows) that it doesn't meet the standard. He has a moral responsibility here and he fails badly.

That tells me that Act III Cullen is not much if any different than Act 1 "Mages aren't people" Cullen.

As for surviving a traumatic situation, shame of the Chatnry for putting him in a position of ANY responbility over mages (same goes for Meredith).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Urzon wrote...

What?  Mr "Mages aren't people like you and me?"  He's just as bad as Meredith IMO.

-Polaris

Let me guess.... He said that after he was mind-raped by blood mages and demons?

Did you expect him to be pro-mage after he just see them kill all his friends and comrades, and they tortured him to the brink of insanity?

"Mages aren't people like you and me" is extreme even for rigidly anti-mage Templars.  Even the other templars said so.

-Polaris

[CrimsonZephyr]

Urzon wrote...

What?  Mr "Mages aren't people like you and me?"  He's just as bad as Meredith IMO.

-Polaris

Let me guess.... He said that after he was mind-raped by blood mages and demons?

Did you expect him to be pro-mage after he just see them kill all his friends and comrades, and they tortured him to the brink of insanity?

Probably not, but it is worth mentioning that mages did fight and die defending the Circle. It was Uldred's cabal, not all mages, and part of Uldred's success can be attributed to the Circle chasing after people like Jowan instead of people like him. When Irving and Greagoir consider him an ideal blood mage catcher, you really have to question their perspective.

Either way, Cullen gets better. Though his contrition might have been of more use before the siege and not after.

[dragonflight288]

I don't see signs of Cullen changing. He doesn't challenge Meredith's RoA even though he thinks (knows) that it doesn't meet the standard. He has a moral responsibility here and he fails badly.

That tells me that Act III Cullen is not much if any different than Act 1 "Mages aren't people" Cullen.

As for surviving a traumatic situation, shame of the Chatnry for putting him in a position of ANY responbility over mages (same goes for Meredith).

....based on seeing your other arguments on morality, debating with you here would be like talking to a brick wall.

I happen to agree with you on roughly 80% of what you say, but sometimes templars and the chantry do have good points, even if following through on it leads to a corrupt practice. Nothing more, nothing less.

Suffice it to say, I for one would like to see Cullen as a companion and see his character develop further, or stagnate into insanity. If only for the academic knowledge of his character instead of pure speculation.

[IanPolaris]

To each their own, I guess. I am not inclined to be very charitable toward's Cullen I guess.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 01 septembre 2011 - 04:22 .

[dragonflight288]

To each their own, I guess. I am not inclined to be very charitable toward's Cullen I guess.

Fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Put three people in a room and you'll have 6-9 opinions.

[Iakus]

IanPolaris wrote...

I don't see signs of Cullen changing. He doesn't challenge Meredith's RoA even though he thinks (knows) that it doesn't meet the standard. He has a moral responsibility here and he fails badly.

That tells me that Act III Cullen is not much if any different than Act 1 "Mages aren't people" Cullen.

As for surviving a traumatic situation, shame of the Chatnry for putting him in a position of ANY responbility over mages (same goes for Meredith).

-Polaris

Act 3:  "After what happened in  Ferelden I told myself I would never again question the purpose of the Order.  But it grows harder each day to tell if I'm serving the Templars or only the Knight-Commander.  It may be that they are no longer one and the same"

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

IanPolaris wrote...


As for surviving a traumatic situation, shame of the Chatnry for putting him in a position of ANY responbility over mages (same goes for Meredith).

-Polaris

Well yeah, that's one of my arguements for the Chantry's professional incompetance. Knowing their histories and experiences with mages, a competant organization would have stationed Cullen and meredith someplace or in some capacity where they would have minimal dealings with mages. especially the ones in the Circles, who are the ones the Chantry is supposed to at least pretend to give a sh*t about.

But, that's besides the point, I can't really blame Cullen for his placement in Kirkwall. he ended up there despite it probably being a really bad idea for both the welfare of the mages under his charge, as well as his own mental health and welfare. But the Chantry seems pretty clueless, or even deliberate, on that aspect.

As far as Cullen goes specifically, what I found really odd was that at the beginning of Act 3, Cullen was starting to compare Meredith's mental state to Uldred. When you have Cullen of all people comparing a templar commander he once admired to the crazy blood mage abomination that tortured him and killed his friends, well...

Why he wasn't deciding to be more active in removing Meredith on instinct is beyond me. But, heh.

[tmp7704]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

This level of technological progress has been pretty much unchanged for over a millenia. 1000 years and they are still about at the same level of technological development they have been 1000 years ago.

On what presumptions do you base your facts?

(we don't get to see what level of technological progress Thedas actually had 1000 years ago, do we?)

[IanPolaris]

tmp7704 wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

This level of technological progress has been pretty much unchanged for over a millenia. 1000 years and they are still about at the same level of technological development they have been 1000 years ago.

On what presumptions do you base your facts?

(we don't get to see what level of technological progress Thedas actually had 1000 years ago, do we?)

When we storm soldier's keep, we see arms and armor that are three centuries old and they are no better or worse than current versions.  In the Brecelian forest we unearth a complete set of the plate armor of a Tevinter General which is actually better than all but the most cutting edge armors available in the game and that has to be at least a thousand years old, so yeah, I'd say there hasn't been much if any technological advancement.

-Polaris

[tmp7704]

IanPolaris wrote...

When we storm soldier's keep, we see arms and armor that are three centuries old and they are no better or worse than current versions.  In the Brecelian forest we unearth a complete set of the plate armor of a Tevinter General which is actually better than all but the most cutting edge armors available in the game and that has to be at least a thousand years old, so yeah, I'd say there hasn't been much if any technological advancement.

Gameplay vs storytelling. It never struck you odd how these hundred years old weapons and armours somehow just happen to be in mint condition too, even though they should be long eaten by rust?

And i'm sure players would *love* to get tier 1 gear as reward for beating the game bosses.

(same reason why late in the game you find tier 7 loot in the random chests in Alienage that's worth few gold each, when at the beginning of the game 15 copper is a big deal in the very same place)

Modifié par tmp7704, 01 septembre 2011 - 05:38 .

[IanPolaris]

tmp7704 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

When we storm soldier's keep, we see arms and armor that are three centuries old and they are no better or worse than current versions.  In the Brecelian forest we unearth a complete set of the plate armor of a Tevinter General which is actually better than all but the most cutting edge armors available in the game and that has to be at least a thousand years old, so yeah, I'd say there hasn't been much if any technological advancement.

Gameplay vs storytelling. It never struck you odd how these hundred years old weapons and armours somehow just happen to be in mint condition too, even though they should be long eaten by rust?

And i'm sure players would *love* to get tier 1 gear as reward for beating the game bosses.

That's a damn copout and I think you know it.  I am supposed to ignore the very evidence I gather in character? 

I don't think so.....  [Besides if you look at most periods of even Western history, you find that in most eras change is almost imperceptibly slow.  It's only the past five hundred years and especially the last one hundred or so that have been exceptional.]

-Polaris

[Jedi Master of Orion]

IanPolaris wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

When we storm soldier's keep, we see arms and armor that are three centuries old and they are no better or worse than current versions.  In the Brecelian forest we unearth a complete set of the plate armor of a Tevinter General which is actually better than all but the most cutting edge armors available in the game and that has to be at least a thousand years old, so yeah, I'd say there hasn't been much if any technological advancement.

Gameplay vs storytelling. It never struck you odd how these hundred years old weapons and armours somehow just happen to be in mint condition too, even though they should be long eaten by rust?

And i'm sure players would *love* to get tier 1 gear as reward for beating the game bosses.

That's a damn copout and I think you know it.  I am supposed to ignore the very evidence I gather in character? 

I don't think so.....  [Besides if you look at most periods of even Western history, you find that in most eras change is almost imperceptibly slow.  It's only the past five hundred years and especially the last one hundred or so that have been exceptional.]

-Polaris

Sometimes the answer may be just as simple as that. Personally I do not think the Dragon Age setting is ever going to drastically leap ahead in technological advancements for any reason. It's not because the Chantry is actively prohibiting science, it'd be the same everywhere because Bioware doesn't want to dramaticallyalter the universe. I don't think any of the nations will find themselves developing significantly more sophisticated weapons or infrastructure.