472 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

DPSSOC wrote...

And who watches the people who watch the watchmen?  Who watches the people who watch the people who watch the watchmen?  Who watches the people, etc, etc, etc.  There is no perfect system, eventually you have to just trust in people (frightening though that might be).

And if we're supposed to trust the Templars, why not trust the mages themselves? 

[TEWR]

LobselVith8 wrote...

And who makes certain those watching the mages don't get out of hand? Who watches the watchmen?

Oh man, that old saying reminded me of this.

Okay, time to be serious now.

[DPSSOC]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

And who watches the people who watch the watchmen?  Who watches the people who watch the people who watch the watchmen?  Who watches the people, etc, etc, etc.  There is no perfect system, eventually you have to just trust in people (frightening though that might be).

And if we're supposed to trust the Templars, why not trust the mages themselves? 

And if we're supposed to trust the police, why not trust the citizens themselves?

The thing is, we don't trust the Templars.  If we trusted the Templars, Elthina wouldn't have had any jurisdiction over them and the Seekers wouldn't exist.  Again the fact that oversight failed in Kirkwall does not mean oversight doesn't exist.

Edit: [stupid touch pad]

But the simplest reasoning is numbers.  The watchmen generally number fewer than those they're watching, though this might not be the case with the Templars abroad I think it's mentioned it's not in Kirkwall specifically.  So rather than putting our faith in thousands of people we put it in a few hundred.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 04 octobre 2011 - 01:47 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

[quote]Satyricon331 wrote...

I think we're at the crux of our disagreement here (although I agree it's a structural/factual thing).  I think the issue here is that no analogy is going to have analogues that are similar in all respects - the analogues are different things, after all (excepting the degenerate case of analogizing something to itself).  You can only say a moral analogy is useful or not for specific moral theories, and even then usually only for specific moral questions.  If the morally salient features that are analogous between A and B are sufficient in the theory to require C, then the theory says it should hold in B as well.  If you say A and B are analogous under theory X for questions of C, it doesn't imply they're similar in all respects - and in particular, they might have differences salient for theory Y.  In fact, X might distinguish them for questions of practicing D (although then it's a weaker analogy).[/quote]
Yes, that makes sense. I will accept that.

[quote]
[quote]
But, to carry it further, and state that all mages carry some kind of a "dormant virus" in him/her (and transmit it to his/her progeny), which activates at some point in the future (if at all) fails in being analogous to how a disease might work, because to me what appears to be more of an analogy is that mages carry a pre-disposition to attracting a virus (a demon), and thus contracting the disease. The "disease" does not exist in the mages, only a pre-disposition to contract it, when they come in contact with the pathogen (the demon). Hopefully I've made my question clear; and my position is that your disease analogy to magic fails in this regard.
[/quote]

I think the sentence I bolded above is I think the issue we're having.[/quote]
I agree.

[quote]
I agree there are concrete differences between even my hypothetical disease and magic, but I disagree the concrete difference I bolded above is relevant for all moral theories, even if it is true,[/quote]
And with this, I believe our disagreement is at an end. I had not understood your stand on this earlier. Although, I'm not sure why I found it so difficult since you had brought this up earlier.

[quote]
although that's not clear to me since there's the issue of immediacy of risk.[/quote]
Which one is not clear? The truth of it is not clear? The issue I feel is we don't know what magic itself means or how it originates, other than that it is manifested by mages; so we'll be hampered by this limited understanding when drawing analogies about magic, which may require specifically this knowledge.

[quote]
If you disagree with my disagreement here then you need to show that all moral theories treat that difference as salient for all moral questions that affect them (no matter how silly the theory or question), since that's the sweeping logical position I rejected (and I only jumped in since I thought he was being stubborn about a question of objective fact).[/quote]
No. I'm not gonna embark on that endeavor. it's logically absurd for me to do so. Which means I accept your statements above as true.

[quote]
I provided a specific example of one moral theory, but I don't need that specific example - really, I don't need any specific example since all I need to do to rebut a nonexistence claim is to show a counterexample exists, not what the counterexample is.  Many arguments proceed that way, after all - although I was more concrete.[/quote]
I believe at least one example would be required (at least to prove its existence), lest it turn out to be a pointless debate about one person asserting X and the other NOT X.

[quote]
Which is a long way of saying that it just isn't relevant to my position whether a predisposition to contract a disease is enough for quarantine for a particular moral theory.  Really, your question amounts to trying to get me to strengthen my claim about the analogy, but I don't want to change my position and I'd rather stick to what I have.[/quote]
Nor will I ask you to since that isn't your stand. But if someone does claim that a predisposition to contract a disease is sufficient for quarantine according to some moral theory, I'd like to know how or why that is so.

[quote]
Even still though, if it helps I'll point out that disease and magic are suitable for a consequentialist analogy as well.  They both have features that have consequences, and they both have agents that have action sets that affect those consequences.  Those facts are salient for consequentialism, and are enough to establish that if an agent in one of the analogues should act to bring about best consequences, he or she must do so in the other, whatever the question - including questions pertaining to quarantine.[/quote]
Now, at this stage, I'll tentatively admit that it might be possible. I'm not sure how, but it just might. But I'd say that I'd not proceed along this direction, associating magic and disease, for reasons of my own.

[quote]
Now, I'd agree the analogy is not helpful since its point (that consequentialism wants you to act per its imperatives) went without saying, it'd be easier to argue its point without an analogy at all, and you can't extend the analogy to anything interesting (edit: in particular, you can't even say on the basis of the analogy that the result of bringing about best consequences for a quarantine question is the same for both).  But nonetheless it suffices for the counterexample I need.[/quote]
Well, at least some (or is it many?) people here seem to be acknowledging that mages need training and they need to at least give up some of their freedom, which could be loosely thought about as a case for quarantining mages, at least for some time. They seem to be acknowledging the consequences of what might happen if such a thing is not done. So they are in a sense arguing along those lines, and without a need for an analogous setting.

But I'd think analogy is a tool and we can use it in any setting, whether from a consequentialist perspective or from any other perspective for that matter. At least I think there is no contradiction involved. I'm not saying that you suggested it shouldn't be used, however.

[quote]
By that token, come to think of it, they're suitable for a trite analogy for all (or at least nearly any) moral theory.  The two have features salient for moral theories, and as such they're both suitable for moral analysis.  (I say "nearly any" since perhaps some theories don't think either are of any moral significance.)  In our terms above, A and B share the morally salient feature that they have morally salient features (where C is whether moral analysis is relevant to apply).[/quote]
Yes, particularly, I suppose one could argue that disease can be transmitted from mother to child and so can magic (as you'd done). But what comes of this analogy is a different matter.

[quote]
Pessimism is realism [/quote]
I'm sure you meant it as a joke. But what does that statement really mean? Does it mean that having an optimistic outlook is somehow not compatible with reality or common sense? I'm just thinking what (if any) basis is there for believing it, even if as a joke.

[quote]
But yes, I find the debates entertaining.[/quote]
Amusing, yes. And perhaps also meant to be like spectacles. More so, I think it's done sometimes for good fun.

[quote]
I just dislike getting dragged in; there are other places online where it's more possible to have constructive engagement.  Look back in this very thread - there are at least two posters who seem to be reacting (acerbically) to what I wrote (they didn't name me) but clearly didn't bother reading much anything I said.[/quote]
But do they bother you? Presumably they're more or less in the same boat of not understanding your stance as I previously didn't. They perhaps don't acknowledge the possibility of a misunderstanding, for whatever reason.

[quote]
[quote]
Are you saying that an inquiry into analogies might itself be to answer moral questions?[/quote]

ALright, I'm not sure what you mean here.[/quote]
Never mind that. I was wondering if you were saying whether the usefulness of analogies is only in answering moral questions. But that apparently also was my (absurd) misunderstanding.

[quote]
My point in that quote is that my personal ethical stance doesn't affect my analysis of the logical implications another ethical theory has.  I feel I can analyze the different deontologies impartially even though I'm not a deontologist, for instance.  Inquiring into analogies can help to answer moral questions, if that's what you mean.[/quote]
Yes. Even I do that sometimes.

And just to be clear again about something else, since I might have spoken about my disposition too soon, without thinking:
Although I said earlier that I think of myself as a consequentialist, I may not be so at the core, because I have core beliefs about things (about rights, say). For instance, I mostly find myself debating against those who hold some particular moral stance, particularly who go for a collectivist attitude (again, for instance, who say that what's good for the majority is what's good), because this is fundamentally what I stand against. I believe in individual rights and freedoms. But I have the sense to acknowledge that this is not how it might work in reality. So instead of engaging them by asserting my own moral outlook, I adopt the different technique of using consequences within their own framework, as it were, and try to see where exactly that outlook might fail. Although I might do this against those who blindly advocate individual rights without understanding consequences, I do this rather rarely.

I do not know what the above makes me, but that is what I tend to do.

[quote]
What I was saying was you didn't think the analogy worked for your ethical theory, hence you thought it was "off-point for your theory."[/quote]
Yes, I think this is what I had done. Really, I should have paid more attention to something like this:
"Really if Ian had simply offered a more measured statement such as 'The analogy is not relevant to our disagreement,' or 'I don't view the two situations as analogous for the moral theory/ies we're discussing,' there would have been no need to jump in."

EDIT: Again, fixing formatting...

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 04 octobre 2011 - 11:54 .

[DKJaigen]

@DPSSOC

I can only say that as policemen you live in seriously ****ed up country with severely ****ed up law enforcement

[Cobra's_back]

Playing a mage in DA2 made me think there were places where the dialogue or story didn’t make sense.
I saved Cullen using magic. I have a staff and he tells my Hawke that Mages are not like “you and I they are weapons”.
I thought that was totally lame. When I tried to respond that I was a mage, Hawke replies “ I know mages that can be trusted”.
Cullen must be blind or the writers really didn’t check all the dialogues to allow a mage Hawke. On the other hand, Act2 Meredith saves mage Hawke from a Saarebas and tells her that she knows she is a mage.
How did they not notice the staff? Did anyone else have this same experience? Maybe I’m missing something?

[Satyricon331]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Which one is not clear? The truth of it is not clear? The issue I feel is we don't know what magic itself means or how it originates, other than that it is manifested by mages; so we'll be hampered by this limited understanding when drawing analogies about magic, which may require specifically this knowledge.

Ironically, I wasn't clear there at all   I meant if it is true that your analogy is stronger (in the sense that it's a better fit - it holds for more theories and questions).  It's not clear to me because the risk of going abomination can be immediate with a mage (or at least, it seemed so in DA2's Kirkwall, which isn't representative), but with a vulnerability to disease it's not immediate unless the virus is sufficiently near the person.  But that's an empirical question of rates, etc., so I could go either way, depending on the evidence.

Now, at this stage, I'll tentatively admit that it might be possible. I'm not sure how, but it just might. But I'd say that I'd not proceed along this direction, associating magic and disease, for reasons of my own.

Nor would I proceed in that direction.  All that particular analogy says is that they're analogous in that under consequentialism, they should receive consequentialist treatment, which went without saying.  It doesn't say anything specific or helpful (and it might be that consequentialism would treat them differently when it comes down to the specifics).  But by that token, they're analogous that way for nearly any moral theory - if you have a particular moral view and accept the hypothetical of treating DA as if it were real, then the two are analogous in that you should act morally in each, if the morality is applicable.  Yet, that says practically nothing.

So they are in a sense arguing along those lines, and without a need for an analogous setting.

But I'd think analogy is a tool and we can use it in any setting, whether from a consequentialist perspective or from any other perspective for that matter. At least I think there is no contradiction involved. I'm not saying that you suggested it shouldn't be used, however.

Yeah, if someone finds it helpful they should use it.  I just doubt those two particular ones I offered are useful.

I'm sure you meant it as a joke. But what does that statement really mean? Does it mean that having an optimistic outlook is somehow not compatible with reality or common sense? I'm just thinking what (if any) basis is there for believing it, even if as a joke.

Oh, it just means reality turns out badly.  I'm in America.   (I am joking to an extent.)

And just to be clear again about something else, since I might have spoken about my disposition too soon, without thinking:
Although I said earlier that I think of myself as a consequentialist, I may not be so at the core, because I have core beliefs about things (about rights, say). For instance, I mostly find myself debating against those who hold some particular moral stance, particularly who go for a collectivist attitude (again, for instance, who say that what's good for the majority is what's good), because this is fundamentally what I stand against. I believe in individual rights and freedoms. But I have the sense to acknowledge that this is not how it might work in reality. So instead of engaging them by asserting my own moral outlook, I adopt the different technique of using consequences within their own framework, as it were, and try to see where exactly that outlook might fail. Although I might do this against those who blindly advocate individual rights without understanding consequences, I do this rather rarely.

I do not know what the above makes me, but that is what I tend to do.

I don't think it's enough really to say either way.  It depends on why you believe in individual rights and freedoms, and what you're willing to sacrifice to preserve them.  If you think they serve some purpose, that we have them because they produce better outcomes for people (as I do), then you might be a consequentialist, maybe.  Consequentialists can differ about what the consequences of individualism are, and how to value/assess them (actually, consequentialism is a family of theories rather than a single one).  If you'd sacrifice the entire species in order to avoid violating someone's rights, as Kant would, then you're definitely a deontologist (which is also a family of theories).

And btw, I appreciate your concerted effort earlier to change the tone.  That kind of thing almost never happens online.

[FieryDove]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Playing a mage in DA2 made me think there were places where the dialogue or story didn’t make sense.
I saved Cullen using magic. I have a staff and he tells my Hawke that Mages are not like “you and I they are weapons”.
I thought that was totally lame. When I tried to respond that I was a mage, Hawke replies “ I know mages that can be trusted”.
Cullen must be blind or the writers really didn’t check all the dialogues to allow a mage Hawke. On the other hand, Act2 Meredith saves mage Hawke from a Saarebas and tells her that she knows she is a mage.
How did they not notice the staff? Did anyone else have this same experience? Maybe I’m missing something?

If the game had allowed everyone to notice mage hawke I would imagine we would have been dragged away to the gallows and game over early on in kirkwall. Not very exciting for game play. Or they could have axed mages in favor of story but people *might* have been upset over that.

[TheJediSaint]

It's called Gameplay and Story segregation. DA2 is not the first game from Bioware to feature this. I seem to recall more than one time in KOTOR where people not did not realize that I was a Jedi despite the fact I was wearing robes and carrying a lightsaber.

[Killjoy Cutter]

TheJediSaint wrote...
It's called Gameplay and Story segregation.

Blah.

[TJPags]

FieryDove wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Playing a mage in DA2 made me think there were places where the dialogue or story didn’t make sense.
I saved Cullen using magic. I have a staff and he tells my Hawke that Mages are not like “you and I they are weapons”.
I thought that was totally lame. When I tried to respond that I was a mage, Hawke replies “ I know mages that can be trusted”.
Cullen must be blind or the writers really didn’t check all the dialogues to allow a mage Hawke. On the other hand, Act2 Meredith saves mage Hawke from a Saarebas and tells her that she knows she is a mage.
How did they not notice the staff? Did anyone else have this same experience? Maybe I’m missing something?

If the game had allowed everyone to notice mage hawke I would imagine we would have been dragged away to the gallows and game over early on in kirkwall. Not very exciting for game play. Or they could have axed mages in favor of story but people *might* have been upset over that.

Just demonstrates why the whole idea of putting the story in mage-central was kind of . . . what's the word here?  Oh yes - dumb.

[DPSSOC]

DKJaigen wrote...

@DPSSOC

I can only say that as policemen you live in seriously ****ed up country with severely ****ed up law enforcement

While I'm not entirely disagreeing with you may I ask what led you to that conclusion?  Is it my mention that I could probably find a Kerras, an Alric, and a Meredith in my local police department?  PM would be best so as not to derail the thread but I must confess to being curious.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Satyricon331 wrote...

Ironically, I wasn't clear there at all   I meant if it is true that your analogy is stronger (in the sense that it's a better fit - it holds for more theories and questions).  It's not clear to me because the risk of going abomination can be immediate with a mage (or at least, it seemed so in DA2's Kirkwall, which isn't representative), but with a vulnerability to disease it's not immediate unless the virus is sufficiently near the person.  But that's an empirical question of rates, etc., so I could go either way, depending on the evidence.

I think that's a good point.

Oh, it just means reality turns out badly.  I'm in America.   (I am joking to an extent.)

I'll persist on this just a little bit longer.

I got a sense from reading this and this that the writers or developers hold (or prefer) a more pessimistic outlook on things, esp. that part about "most of our writers tend to prefer tragic moments." When you wrote that "pessimism is realism" I kind of began to wonder if there is a general trend to it. Maybe it's just that I'm just reading too much into it...

I don't think it's enough really to say either way.  It depends on why you believe in individual rights and freedoms, and what you're willing to sacrifice to preserve them.  If you think they serve some purpose, that we have them because they produce better outcomes for people (as I do), then you might be a consequentialist, maybe.

I think it might be this. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem I suppose, since I don't remember what initially caused me to go this way. Of course, I'd imagine that to even hold a particular moral position, one'd at least have needed (not necessarily, of course, but usually) some comparative analysis of contrasting/different outlooks, so it could be consequentialist approach in the end. But I honestly don't remember...

Consequentialists can differ about what the consequences of individualism are, and how to value/assess them (actually, consequentialism is a family of theories rather than a single one).  If you'd sacrifice the entire species in order to avoid violating someone's rights, as Kant would, then you're definitely a deontologist (which is also a family of theories).

I haven't read Kant (I've just come across that name). But I'm a bit curious. What situation (I mean, in reality) could present itself that one'd have to sacrifice either an individual or the whole of the species, as the only two extant choices available. I think that holding individual freedom/rights need not force one into such a choice, at least if that person realizes, at all moments, the other side of freedom, viz. the responsibility of recognizing that such a notion must also apply to each and every individual, and therefore there are limits to what degree such rights might be exercised in reality.

And btw, I appreciate your concerted effort earlier to change the tone.  That kind of thing almost never happens online.

We can always start to change that.

Actually, it was you who made me re-think what I was doing. Especially when you said this: "look at what happens for statements of readily verifiable, objective fact, much less ethics." So, really, if our end goal was to debate issues of ethics (not that I'm saying that that is what we were aiming to do at that moment), we'd have to get past the logjam of debating facts, which really should be easy, unless something really basic had gone wrong, which lead me to think about what you wrote about "understanding" earlier. The rest I suppose was easy...

And I, too, appreciate that you took the time to explain it (again, I must add) so clearly.

[JoeLaTurkey]

I'd say most holes on the mage storyline side of things are forgivable if only they found a way of explaining how someone in full robes and a staff could strut around the Gallows clear as day without arousing suspicion.

[Cobra's_back]

TJPags wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Playing a mage in DA2 made me think there were places where the dialogue or story didn’t make sense.
I saved Cullen using magic. I have a staff and he tells my Hawke that Mages are not like “you and I they are weapons”.
I thought that was totally lame. When I tried to respond that I was a mage, Hawke replies “ I know mages that can be trusted”.
Cullen must be blind or the writers really didn’t check all the dialogues to allow a mage Hawke. On the other hand, Act2 Meredith saves mage Hawke from a Saarebas and tells her that she knows she is a mage.
How did they not notice the staff? Did anyone else have this same experience? Maybe I’m missing something?

If the game had allowed everyone to notice mage hawke I would imagine we would have been dragged away to the gallows and game over early on in kirkwall. Not very exciting for game play. Or they could have axed mages in favor of story but people *might* have been upset over that.

Just demonstrates why the whole idea of putting the story in mage-central was kind of . . . what's the word here?  Oh yes - dumb.

I totally agree. It made me LOL

[Killjoy Cutter]

They could have at least provided some sort of in-game explanation for why mage Hawke is allowed to run around casting spells and taking names, while mage Bethany is snatched up by the circle if she doesn't go to the deep roads.

[Vicious]

Right, it could be something as simple as an early meeting with the grand cleric and a required quest, in which she allows you to act on your own as long as it's in the interests of Kirkwall.

A quest you don't get as a Warrior/Rogue, because it's extraneous and makes no sense.

But nope, guess the idea of 'explaining' things flew right over Bioware's head.

[EmperorSahlertz]

If you are all so dead set on roleplaying an apostate, perhaps you shouldn't be flinging spells in public, hm?

[Vicious]

Hard to do when even hitting some guy with a staff causes an explosion of effects.

[Cobra's_back]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If you are all so dead set on roleplaying an apostate, perhaps you shouldn't be flinging spells in public, hm?

Actually, I thought it was funny. I love playing a dual dagger rogue or mage. Mages get to nuke.
Templars being clueless provided a little comic relief.

[Everwarden]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If you are all so dead set on roleplaying an apostate, perhaps you shouldn't be flinging spells in public, hm?

There isn't really an option to do that. Even mage melee attacks involve pewpew explosions, and there are very few clothing items a mage can wear that don't scream "I'm a mage! Mage here!" 

Another example of Dragon Age II being a rushed mess.

[Satyricon331]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
I'll persist on this just a little bit longer.

I got a sense from reading this and this that the writers or developers hold (or prefer) a more pessimistic outlook on things, esp. that part about "most of our writers tend to prefer tragic moments." When you wrote that "pessimism is realism" I kind of began to wonder if there is a general trend to it. Maybe it's just that I'm just reading too much into it...

I had seen the first one but not the second.  I think for literature, it's just that people think the happy ending is overdone - it was so common you could often anticipate plot events simply because you knew they had to resolve so as to produce a happy ending.  I think the idea here is that to keep reader interest, you need to be less predictable, and tragedy is less predictable.  My take anyway.  You might be right it's a more general trend; I recently read about a show called "Happy Days" and it's hard to imagine a show nowadays with that title meant non-ironically.

I think it might be this. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem I suppose, since I don't remember what initially caused me to go this way. Of course, I'd imagine that to even hold a particular moral position, one'd at least have needed (not necessarily, of course, but usually) some comparative analysis of contrasting/different outlooks, so it could be consequentialist approach in the end. But I honestly don't remember...

Fair enough, and you're probably right.

I haven't read Kant (I've just come across that name). But I'm a bit curious. What situation (I mean, in reality) could present itself that one'd have to sacrifice either an individual or the whole of the species, as the only two extant choices available. I think that holding individual freedom/rights need not force one into such a choice, at least if that person realizes, at all moments, the other side of freedom, viz. the responsibility of recognizing that such a notion must also apply to each and every individual, and therefore there are limits to what degree such rights might be exercised in reality.

The obvious example is lying.  He thought a lie was never permissible, under any circumstance, no matter the result of not answering or of telling the truth.  So if circumstances were such that the only way you could stop some psycho from, say, using a powerful bomb to blow up the planet was to lie to her/him about a question s/he's asked, Kant would say tough luck.  As for whether that could happen in reality... maybe at some point in the future such an unlikely scenario could arise, but for now I doubt it.  The point though is just that he doesn't care (directly, at least) about outcomes in terms of human welfare.

And I, too, appreciate that you took the time to explain it (again, I must add) so clearly.

Without meaning to sound too obsequious, the credit should go to you.  I really let the situation get away from me even though I usually try consciously to avoid that type of thing.  

[Vicious]

There isn't really an option to do that. Even mage melee attacks involve pewpew explosions, and there are very few clothing items a mage can wear that don't scream "I'm a mage! Mage here!"

Pretty much all of the good 'NOT A ROBE' Mage armor is in DLC or hard to get.

[Morroian]

Everwarden wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If you are all so dead set on roleplaying an apostate, perhaps you shouldn't be flinging spells in public, hm?

There isn't really an option to do that. Even mage melee attacks involve pewpew explosions, and there are very few clothing items a mage can wear that don't scream "I'm a mage! Mage here!" 

Another example of Dragon Age II being a rushed mess.

The issue is mainly in Act 1 when you have no money or authority. And in Act 1 it is possible to role play an apostate trying to hide by wearing the mercenary outfit you get at the start which are not like mage robes at all and when you go to the Gallows during the day you don't have to take your staff, there are no fights there in Act 1 after the initial fight when you arrive in Kirkwall and there are no templars around to witness those fights. Plus in Act 1 you don't actually fling spells wholesale in front of templars except with the Wilmod fight which was badly done. However I do admit they could have done more to reduce the gameplay/story segregation. 1 way would have been to show more people who aren't mages carrying staves.

In Act 2 you have money and its implied that Varric is bribing the tempars, Act 3 you are the Champion.

[Bestyj669]

Issue is lvl 7/14 - "epilogue" if you choose to be a blood mage. But conveniently not a single NPC seems to give a damn about this...

I bet, after what happened in the tower in DA:O, Cullen would have been overjoyed you've started playing with blood magic in front of him.

I have no doubts Meredith would have been very pleased to see that ... In fact few hundred bodies later she calls us the champion.

Modifié par Bestyj669, 05 octobre 2011 - 11:19 .