1253 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

If you side with the mages, Aveline mentions that Donnic has commanded the guards to prevent the commoners from joinning the fighting.

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You can't always stop a frenzied mob by giving them the guilty man. Sadly. Had Anders not been a mage, then perhaps his public execution could have been enough. He is a amge though, and he went after the only place of sanctum the people have. They are going to project all their fear on to all mages, not just Anders.

They may well project their fear onto all mages, but that would likely mean they wouldn't go to the place where the mages are concentrated and try to attack them.  That much deep seated fear would be hard to overcome to lead a mob of untrained barely armed folks to the steps of something as intimidating as the Gallows.

[LobselVith8]

At another thread, Bioware's John Epler discussed the mage situation in Kirkwall. I thought I'd share it for anyone who hadn't been it, since this thread deals with the mages in Kirkwall:

JohnEpler wrote...

Not every mage was a blood mage in DA2. Even among those who practiced blood magic, there were some who didn't misuse their power - Alain is an example of a mage who, while using blood magic at a particular juncture, never uses his power to dominate or control. It's even arguable that he's not even particularly culpable for 'falling in' with the bad crowd. He's scared, alone and looking for any way out, and when it's offered, he takes it - only to realize exactly who his new bedfellows are.

However, I think saying that 'the blood mages in DA2 tell you that the Chantry is right' isn't really looking at the whole picture. Kirkwall is stuck in a vicious cycle - the Templars tighten their grip on the mages, and some members of the Templar Order use this as justification to treat the mages as pets and/or slaves. Since Meredith isn't doing anything about it, some mages turn to blood magic as their only escape from what is (in many instances) a rather hopeless existence. Meredith sees the blood mages, ignores that, in some cases, her Templars share equal blame and uses it as justification to further tighten her hold.

Couple that with a city that was literally built on a foundation of blood (read the Enigma of Kirkwall Codex entries, or read them on the wiki), and you have a city that, even with a Templar Commander and First Enchanter who were completely cooperative with each other, would see a higher-than-average incidence of mage corruption. Since the two of them are anything -but- cooperative (Meredith's zealotry due to her past, and Orsino's attitude of resignation), it's really just a matter of time before something gives.

I appreciated Epler providing serious responses to people who had issues with the mage storyline in Dragon Age 2, rather than attacking them for daring to have a negative opinion about how it was handled. Epler followed this comment later in the thread with:

JohnEpler wrote...

craigdolphin wrote...

Fair enough I guess. But I have to admit I too was utterly sick of the constant mage-vs-templar theme by midway through Act 2. One quest in particular (involving lillies) infuriated me in this regard. Could it not have been an 'ordinary' nut-case for a change?

I really don't want to play DA3 if it is going to similarly endlessly bludgeon the same theme to death with darned near every quest and event like DA2 did. Surely there are other stories to tell, other dramas to resolve, that do not involve the conflict between mages and templars.

While I'm not a writer, I'd see it less as 'look, mage/templar war! Now let's talk about that from now on!' as 'look, mage/templar war! Now let's see how this is one more element, combined with what happened in Ferelden, to flavour everything that's happening from now on!' A Blight, followed closely by the partial and (relatively) unprecedented dissolution of an institution that's existed for a very long time will both have an effect on the world as a whole.

Epler continued providing his perspective about the mages in Kirkwall:

JohnEpler wrote...

SpearofUganda wrote...

But would that be enough to act as a catalyst for wider change? If you say the city itself lended itself towards the corruption of mages then why would the conflict extend beyond the walls of Kirkwall? I think the problem is that Kirkwall feels insular, almost detached from greater Feralden...

Kirkwall was a symbol that, yes, the 'tyranny' of the Templars could be successfully overthrown and the mages could break away from the control of the Circles. Whatever one's feelings on how justified the Chantry is in their control of the mages, if you existed in that situation, even if you spent every day believing that the Templars are there for the greater good and are a necessary precaution - there's still going to be a tiny part of you that realizes you are under the control of another.

And while the events in Kirkwall wouldn't be enough of a catalyst for -everyone-, there are going to be those who are on the edge - who won't resort to blood magic, but who see what happened in Kirkwall as both a symbol and a cautionary tale ('see, this is how bad the Templars can get'). And if there are enough charismatic mages in your Circle who are arguing to break away from the Chantry, well, there will be no shortage of less strong-minded mages who are willing to follow them.

There are certainly sufficient examples in the real world of the domino effect, where one group successfully rebels against an oppressive regime and many other groups follow suit. I don't think it's far fetched to believe the same would be true in Thedas. And whether or not the Templars really -are- unnecessarily oppresive in the majority of cases, if you're a mage, there's going to be part of you (however small) that feels that way.

Although I didn't like how the mages were handled in the storyline, I did respect that a dev who worked on the game was seriously addressing the issues and questions that some people had with the mages in Dragon Age 2, and providing his own perspective about the storyline.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You can't always stop a frenzied mob by giving them the guilty man. Sadly. Had Anders not been a mage, then perhaps his public execution could have been enough. He is a amge though, and he went after the only place of sanctum the people have. They are going to project all their fear on to all mages, not just Anders.

In that case, it is the responsibility of the authorities to crush said mob. I don't care how justified said mob is in their rage. Any civil authroity with half a brain knows you don't let mob mentality run amok, nor do you placate it. Meredith doesn't half half a brain, or even a quarter of a brain. She's a psychopath, and is using Anders and the angry mobs as a lame reason to do something she plans on doing anyway.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

@Lobesel: Yeah, Epler has been pretty good at answering questions and at least giving some better explaination of what was at least intended to be portrayed in DA2. Which is part of the reason I at least think the general scenario had alot of potential for a more awesome plot than origins. The execution, however, didn't work for alot of people, I think.

But the general concept was good.

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If you side with the mages, Aveline mentions that Donnic has commanded the guards to prevent the commoners from joinning the fighting.

Stop pretending the mob is important. In medieval times knight reigned supreme because the mob didnt have the ability to oppose trained knights. The templars  task is to protect the mages as well as the common populace and in this regard the templars once again fail spectaculary. But failing seems to be the only thing templars are good in so im not suprised

[EmperorSahlertz]

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If you side with the mages, Aveline mentions that Donnic has commanded the guards to prevent the commoners from joinning the fighting.

Stop pretending the mob is important. In medieval times knight reigned supreme because the mob didnt have the ability to oppose trained knights. The templars  task is to protect the mages as well as the common populace and in this regard the templars once again fail spectaculary. But failing seems to be the only thing templars are good in so im not suprised

The mob is the most important factor in politics, has always been, and will always be. Peasants might not have been able to stand up to knights, one on one. But there were a lot of peasants, and only a handful of knights, which meant that if the peasants ever got really, really mad, the Knights would be overrun.

[dragonflight288]

But please remember that said mob has had templars murder people (or attempt to at least) within for offering food and a place to sleep to mage relatives.

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If you side with the mages, Aveline mentions that Donnic has commanded the guards to prevent the commoners from joinning the fighting.

Stop pretending the mob is important. In medieval times knight reigned supreme because the mob didnt have the ability to oppose trained knights. The templars  task is to protect the mages as well as the common populace and in this regard the templars once again fail spectaculary. But failing seems to be the only thing templars are good in so im not suprised

The mob is the most important factor in politics, has always been, and will always be. Peasants might not have been able to stand up to knights, one on one. But there were a lot of peasants, and only a handful of knights, which meant that if the peasants ever got really, really mad, the Knights would be overrun.

once again you demonstrate that you have so little knowledge on history and military history. The mob in ancient and medieval times had no power at all. so they are not in important especially not in a oligarchy. Sending untrained and unequiped men to war is leading them to the slaughter house. if you have 1000 untrained peasants with pitchforks vs 50 knights then my money is on the knights especially in city battles where the peasants cannot use their advantage of numbers.  The reason why knights became obsolete is because of gunpowder which allowed every commoner that received a few hours of training to take out a knight who had trained all his live

[EmperorSahlertz]

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If you side with the mages, Aveline mentions that Donnic has commanded the guards to prevent the commoners from joinning the fighting.

Stop pretending the mob is important. In medieval times knight reigned supreme because the mob didnt have the ability to oppose trained knights. The templars  task is to protect the mages as well as the common populace and in this regard the templars once again fail spectaculary. But failing seems to be the only thing templars are good in so im not suprised

The mob is the most important factor in politics, has always been, and will always be. Peasants might not have been able to stand up to knights, one on one. But there were a lot of peasants, and only a handful of knights, which meant that if the peasants ever got really, really mad, the Knights would be overrun.

once again you demonstrate that you have so little knowledge on history and military history. The mob in ancient and medieval times had no power at all. so they are not in important especially not in a oligarchy. Sending untrained and unequiped men to war is leading them to the slaughter house. if you have 1000 untrained peasants with pitchforks vs 50 knights then my money is on the knights especially in city battles where the peasants cannot use their advantage of numbers.  The reason why knights became obsolete is because of gunpowder which allowed every commoner that received a few hours of training to take out a knight who had trained all his live

/facepalm
Read a history book. Why did politics ever develop? To please the MASSES. Why the masses? Because the masses are the power. The one who holds the favor of the masses, holds the power. The roman senators did everything they possibly could to gain popularity with the citizens. Knights also knew they had to "please" the commoners (or at least not make their lives so miserable that they would revolt).

Knights became obsolete due to gunpowders and pikes, true. Nobility did not. There were still an upper class, well into the 19th century, which still had to mind the common man.

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

But please remember that said mob has had templars murder people (or attempt to at least) within for offering food and a place to sleep to mage relatives.

Huh? The mob probably don't give two pots of ****** about other mage-sympathizers. They would probably have killed said woman themselves.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


/facepalm
Read a history book. Why did politics ever develop? To please the MASSES. Why the masses? Because the masses are the power.

Perhaps you should be doing the reading here. Politics were invented to control and quell the masses, not please them. The happieness or wellbeing of the masses is not necessary at all to rule. Only their fear and ignorance really matter, which are easily manipulated and appealed to with things such as religion, nationalism, culture, superstition, ect. Politics is the way one inflicts his or her will upon the masses.

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If you side with the mages, Aveline mentions that Donnic has commanded the guards to prevent the commoners from joinning the fighting.

Stop pretending the mob is important. In medieval times knight reigned supreme because the mob didnt have the ability to oppose trained knights. The templars  task is to protect the mages as well as the common populace and in this regard the templars once again fail spectaculary. But failing seems to be the only thing templars are good in so im not suprised

The mob is the most important factor in politics, has always been, and will always be. Peasants might not have been able to stand up to knights, one on one. But there were a lot of peasants, and only a handful of knights, which meant that if the peasants ever got really, really mad, the Knights would be overrun.

once again you demonstrate that you have so little knowledge on history and military history. The mob in ancient and medieval times had no power at all. so they are not in important especially not in a oligarchy. Sending untrained and unequiped men to war is leading them to the slaughter house. if you have 1000 untrained peasants with pitchforks vs 50 knights then my money is on the knights especially in city battles where the peasants cannot use their advantage of numbers.  The reason why knights became obsolete is because of gunpowder which allowed every commoner that received a few hours of training to take out a knight who had trained all his live

/facepalm
Read a history book. Why did politics ever develop? To please the MASSES. Why the masses? Because the masses are the power. The one who holds the favor of the masses, holds the power. The roman senators did everything they possibly could to gain popularity with the citizens. Knights also knew they had to "please" the commoners (or at least not make their lives so miserable that they would revolt).

Knights became obsolete due to gunpowders and pikes, true. Nobility did not. There were still an upper class, well into the 19th century, which still had to mind the common man.

You dont please the masses you control them the romans where simply smart in this and used manipulation instead of brute force. They gave the plebs a false sense of power but never true power. If the plebs out of line a roman legion would be sent in to clean up. But thats unproductive and the romans rather used bread and games instead of repression.

Furthermore you are wrong about the nobility fearing the common men. They did not fear them at all. They did however fear the third class that was emerging during the 14'th century the rich and educated middle class of merchants and bankers. Do you really believe that the french revolution was started by a bunch of farmers and peasants?  

[Rifneno]

LobselVith8 wrote...

At another thread, Bioware's John Epler discussed the mage situation in Kirkwall. I thought I'd share it for anyone who hadn't been it, since this thread deals with the mages in Kirkwall

Wow.  Excellent read.  Thanks for pointing that out, it's great to see...  someone from Bioware (I can't find his title listed for some reason) voicing a more serious and thoughtful view on the matter than "kittens who can explode a city block if you touch them."

[Rifneno]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

But please remember that said mob has had templars murder people (or attempt to at least) within for offering food and a place to sleep to mage relatives.

Huh? The mob probably don't give two pots of ****** about other mage-sympathizers. They would probably have killed said woman themselves.

Which is exactly why I facepalm everytime someone tries to justify murdering all the mages to protect that bloodthirsty mob.  Bring the mob on, I won't lose any sleep remembering their agonized screams as they burn to death.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

It's more than just the mob that the mages threaten. Unless you believe the entire population of Kirkwall is a part of it and deserves to die.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 09 septembre 2011 - 12:21 .

[Rifneno]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

It's more than just the mob that the mages threaten. Unless you believe the entire population of Kirkwall is a part of it and deserves to die.

Sorry, I'm not prejudiced enough to presume mages not being murdered = everyone else being murdered.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I'm not either, but my point was that the rational for supporting the templars based on the threat the mages will pose to the rest of the population of Kirkwall is not without merit. Even if they are defending themselves from an unjust Right of Annulment, the mages could well kill a lot of innocents doing so. If Hawke were to judge that it would cost more innocent lives defending the mages than it would helping the templars, then it would make sense to help Meredith.

[Rifneno]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

I'm not either, but my point was that the rational for supporting the templars based on the threat the mages will pose to the rest of the population of Kirkwall is not without merit. Even if they are defending themselves from an unjust Right of Annulment, the mages could well kill a lot of innocents doing so. If Hawke were to judge that it would cost more innocent lives defending the mages than it would helping the templars, then it would make sense to help Meredith.

I disagree for several reasons, but this is another topic from the one I was talking about.  I was saying that I'm totally lost at how people have said (not in this thread, but I've seen it quite a few times) that it's better to help annul the Circle so the lynch mob won't get killed by the mages they want to attack.  They want to kill a bunch of people which includes both evil and innocents, even children, to potentionally save the lives of a bunch of people who are to a man murderous criminals.  It's absurd.

[Shadow Fox]

Rifneno wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

I'm not either, but my point was that the rational for supporting the templars based on the threat the mages will pose to the rest of the population of Kirkwall is not without merit. Even if they are defending themselves from an unjust Right of Annulment, the mages could well kill a lot of innocents doing so. If Hawke were to judge that it would cost more innocent lives defending the mages than it would helping the templars, then it would make sense to help Meredith.

I disagree for several reasons, but this is another topic from the one I was talking about.  I was saying that I'm totally lost at how people have said (not in this thread, but I've seen it quite a few times) that it's better to help annul the Circle so the lynch mob won't get killed by the mages they want to attack.  They want to kill a bunch of people which includes both evil and innocents, even children, to potentionally save the lives of a bunch of people who are to a man murderous criminals.  It's absurd.

No it's because a mob equals pure chaos,chaos equals innocent people getting killed,killing the mages hypothectically prevents a riot thus preventing chaos. It has nothing to do with protecting the mob.

Modifié par Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke, 09 septembre 2011 - 01:25 .

[Rifneno]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

No it's because a mob equals pure chaos,chaos equals innocent people getting killed,killing the mages hypothectically prevents a riot thus preventing chaos. It has nothing to do with protecting the mob.

The riot that had already begun because it was about the Chantry?  How did I miss Doc Brown as a party member?

[Shadow Fox]

Rifneno wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

No it's because a mob equals pure chaos,chaos equals innocent people getting killed,killing the mages hypothectically prevents a riot thus preventing chaos. It has nothing to do with protecting the mob.

The riot that had already begun because it was about the Chantry?  How did I miss Doc Brown as a party member?

If a riot's already accuring then you do what you have to do to restore order not add to the chaos.

[Rifneno]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

No it's because a mob equals pure chaos,chaos equals innocent people getting killed,killing the mages hypothectically prevents a riot thus preventing chaos. It has nothing to do with protecting the mob.

The riot that had already begun because it was about the Chantry?  How did I miss Doc Brown as a party member?

If a riot's already accuring then you do what you have to do to restore order not add to the chaos.

Can't.  There's no option to execute every templar in Kirkwall.

[Shadow Fox]

Rifneno wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

No it's because a mob equals pure chaos,chaos equals innocent people getting killed,killing the mages hypothectically prevents a riot thus preventing chaos. It has nothing to do with protecting the mob.

The riot that had already begun because it was about the Chantry?  How did I miss Doc Brown as a party member?

If a riot's already accuring then you do what you have to do to restore order not add to the chaos.

Can't.  There's no option to execute every templar in Kirkwall.

Except there is no riot because of the Templars,there are attempts to START a riot by Orsino at the start of act 3 but no riot and the city doesn't dissolve into complete chaos untill Anders bombs the Chantry*atleast that what the game shows us*.

[dragonflight288]

I thought Orsino was getting the people rallied over the fact that the Knight-Commander was far too involved with city politics to do her job. He was bringing up points that she wasn't even letting nobles step up to become Viscount, and when Hawke steps up to the plate, she immediately shuts down the idea.