260 réponses à ce sujet

[Porenferser]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Porenferser wrote...
Mages should never be allowed to have full freedom.
I don't want a second Tevinter.

The only Thedas nation that we know of that allows it's citizens any real freedom is Ferelden, where freeholders are allowed to choose which bann, arl or teryn they hold fealty to. With that being the case, why is Tevinter any worse than somewhere like Orzammar with it's rigid castes and abuse of the casteless, or Orlais with it's oppression of the elves and human commoners? To my mind a magocracy is no more inherently worse than a monarchy.

I never said that everything but Tevinter is perfect.
But Tevinter is the worst version of a state, imO.
Mages are just too powerful as tyrants.

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Go look up the quotes from Mr Gaider.  He admitted to the mistake.

I am sorry if that offends you since you are mage hater but the man said it. Its on the forum.

He said that he would have liked to have had more moderate mages. Perhaps because too many people were convinced that *no* mage can be moderate. And that, admittedly, is probably not the conclusion they intended.  I don't believe that the game was written to condition us to hate mages. There is no anti mage agenda, there is only a pro division agenda.

Of course there was an anti-mage agenda and Bioware has admitted it.  It was an overreaction to what they regarded as a "too pro-mage" reaction in DAO without really understanding why most people backed the mages in DAO.  Basically they tried to get more people to pick the Templar by "stacking the deck" and making the mages appear to be worse than they really were and Bioware was caught doing it red handed.

Lets just agree to disagree.  Not every mage is evil.

I agree. Not every mage is evil. But it doesn't take every mage to stage a takeover. It only takes "a good number" of them.

That's true with any source of power.  Solution?  Get some of that power working for you...by treating them as decent members of society.  I novel concept I'm sure.

And if you hate them so much...why not advocate killing them all? Why even bother with the Circles?

Because I don't hate them.

That's interesting given that you've been a leading apologist for genocide and the Chantry's treatment of mages for a long time now.  I'd say you are anti-mage as a fair assessment of your postings.

I look forward to Dragon Age 3 when the secrets of the Chantry are revealed and people find out they've been lied too. It will be fascinating to see the characters question their faith

That's awesome how you can see into the future like that.

I hope it does work out that way.  I am expecting however, to be forced to play the "Heroic" seeker forcing the Chantry's yoke back on Thedas while fighting King Alistair who has been taken over by Pride Abominations.  I mean the anti-mage/pro-chantry tone has been set.  I see no reason why Bioware will alter it now.

-Polaris

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

Of course there was an anti-mage agenda and Bioware has admitted it.  It was an overreaction to what they regarded as a "too pro-mage" reaction in DAO without really understanding why most people backed the mages in DAO.  Basically they tried to get more people to pick the Templar by "stacking the deck" and making the mages appear to be worse than they really were and Bioware was caught doing it red handed.

Again, I've seen you say this, but I don't remember the devs saying it. They didn't want to make mages seem worse than they really were, they wanted more people to recognize how dangerous mages can be.

 But it doesn't take every mage to stage a takeover. It only takes "a good number" of them.

That's true with any source of power.  Solution?  Get some of that power working for you...by treating them as decent members of society.  I novel concept I'm sure.

Because no one has ever tried to take over a country or kingdom just because they wanted to.

And if you hate them so much...why not advocate killing them all? Why even bother with the Circles?

Because I don't hate them.

That's interesting given that you've been a leading apologist for genocide and the Chantry's treatment of mages for a long time now.  I'd say you are anti-mage as a fair assessment of your postings.

Genocide apologist? Wow. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I don't hate mages. Mages don't exist.

I'm also not anti-mage. Because the setting we're talking about is fantasy. I don't care who wins, so long as the story is interesting.

I do find myself making an anti-mage argument more often. Probably because I more often find the pro mage people so quick to judge and condemn players who made a different choices.

I hope it does work out that way.  I am expecting however, to be forced to play the "Heroic" seeker forcing the Chantry's yoke back on Thedas while fighting King Alistair who has been taken over by Pride Abominations.  I mean the anti-mage/pro-chantry tone has been set.  I see no reason why Bioware will alter it now.

I hope we can take either side, either helping the mages against the chantry, or helping the Templars return to the status quo. If we're only allowed to play one side or the other, that wouldn't be any fun.

Modifié par phaonica, 30 septembre 2011 - 06:32 .

[LobselVith8]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Nope.  DG has gone on record publically and recently that one of his biggest regrets was not putting enough reasonable and same mages in DA2.  The Devs have admitted that they essentially badly skewed what mages you did see to the insane, powerhungry Tevinter Demon-mage....possibly because they wanted to make mages the bad guys.  Why?  Too many people sided with mages in DAO.

And why would they think that was a problem? Maybe because a good number of mages *are* too dangerous to be in the public and many mages *would* be happy to rule, and DAO didn't seem to do a good enough job of portraying that.

We see the dangers of magic with Connor in Redcliffe. All we see in Dragon Age 2 is insane and stupid mage antagonists who made no sense in the context of the narrative, with the one exception of Danarius.

For example, Decimus attacks an apostate Hawke if he's with a Dalish elf, a Tevinter elf, and dwarf because he thinks they are templars - that doesn't convince me that mages are dangerous, but that Kirkwall mage antagonists are stupid. Tahrone looks and acts like she's a drug addict who has lost her mind after one too many hits. Quentin is a serial killer who acts like he's in a B-movie rip-off of Frakenstein, and he's simply another insane mage antagonist. Grace loses her mind because Hawke helped her, and others, escape the templars? Orsino loses his mind because Hawke defeats the invading templars? None of these examples provide any evidence to me that mages are dangerous, but that the many mage antagonists are insane.

In fact, we were also provided with two lore-breaking examples of two mages who become abominations, but this doesn't make sense in the context of the lore established because mages aren't cognitive of the real world when they enter the Fade, and these two mages were still in the real world when they became abominations (which can't happen in the lore established by Dragon Age, as we know from the Circle mages at Ostagar who were in the Fade, and the codex on Aeonar that explained how the Tevinter mages were slaughtered by Andrastian forces because the mages were in the Fade).

[phaonica]

LobselVith8 wrote...

phaonica wrote...

And why would they think that was a problem? Maybe because a good number of mages *are* too dangerous to be in the public and many mages *would* be happy to rule, and DAO didn't seem to do a good enough job of portraying that.

We see the dangers of magic with Connor in Redcliffe.

And it would seem that the devs felt that whatever happened with Connor or other apostates or the circle mages in DAO didn't portray the danger the way they wanted to, that is to say in such a way that it could create a significant enough divide between the players' choices.

 All we see in Dragon Age 2 is insane and stupid mage antagonists who
made no sense in the context of the narrative, with the one exception of
Danarius. ...  that doesn't convince me that mages are dangerous, but that Kirkwall mage antagonists are stupid.

Apparently it does convince some people that mages are dangerous because mages are people, and people can be stupid, and stupid people can be dangerous.

In fact, we were also provided with two lore-breaking examples of two mages who become abominations, but this doesn't make sense in the context of the lore established because mages aren't cognitive of the real world when they enter the Fade, and these two mages were still in the real world when they became abominations (which can't happen in the lore established by Dragon Age, as we know from the Circle mages at Ostagar who were in the Fade, and the codex on Aeonar that explained how the Tevinter mages were slaughtered by Andrastian forces because the mages were in the Fade).

I'm not sure where it says that demons only possess those with a presence in the fade.

Modifié par phaonica, 30 septembre 2011 - 06:24 .

[LobselVith8]

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

We see the dangers of magic with Connor in Redcliffe.

And it would seem that the devs felt that whatever happened with Connor or other apostates or the circle mages in DAO didn't portray the danger the way they wanted to, that is to say in such a way that it could create a significant enough divide between the players' choices.

By providing players with a plethora of insane and stupid mage antagonists who made no sense.

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

All we see in Dragon Age 2 is insane and stupid mage antagonists who made no sense in the context of the narrative, with the one exception of Danarius. ...  that doesn't convince me that mages are dangerous, but that Kirkwall mage antagonists are stupid.

Apparently it does convince some people that mages are dangerous because mages are people, and people can be stupid, and stupid people can be dangerous.

Virtually every mage antagonist who Hawke encounters is stupid and insane, and their actions are ridiculous, as I addressed.

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

In fact, we were also provided with two lore-breaking examples of two mages who become abominations, but this doesn't make sense in the context of the lore established because mages aren't cognitive of the real world when they enter the Fade, and these two mages were still in the real world when they became abominations (which can't happen in the lore established by Dragon Age, as we know from the Circle mages at Ostagar who were in the Fade, and the codex on Aeonar that explained how the Tevinter mages were slaughtered by Andrastian forces because the mages were in the Fade).

I'm not sure where it says that demons only possess those with a presence in the fade.

The Circle mages who are in the Fade at Ostagar aren't conscious in the real world, and in the codex, neither were the Tevinter mages at Aeonar.

[Melca36]

I think whats going to happen is that the mages and those siding with them will have to unite with the opposing side because there will be an even bigger threat to Thedas. In the end, the mages who aided them will probably have some improved freedoms and there will likely be some revelation that causes the Chantry to lose some of its power.

[IanPolaris]

How about the part in the Lore that says that Demons approach mages while they are in the fade and attempt to take them over. Of course what DA2 doesn't tell you (and you have to hunt to find it in obscure codex entries) is that Kirkwall has a virtually non-existant veil, but a casual player would never know this.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

IanPolaris wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Do you think Anders will become a martyr in that case, or do you think he'll be forgotten in the shadow of Hawke's legend among the mages? I would imagine Sebastian might be much more sympathetic towards the mages than he would be if Anders had lived, if he regains control of his city-state.

Lob, does it really matter?  Anders was executed for his crimes for which he very publically and forthrightly admitted his guilt.  I honestly don't think he'd be much of a martyr especially if the Hero that saved much of the Kirkwall Circle is the one that executed high justice.  In this I think Anders is engaging in wishful thinking.

That would explain why Cassandra addresses the (pro-mage) Champion of Kirkwall as a hero of the mages, and makes no reference to Anders, regardless of whether he's dead or alive.

IanPolaris wrote...

OTOH, I do think it's essential that a mage Hawke in fact execute Anders for his crime if only to show that yes, mages are willing and able to execute one of their own for crimes against others.  Right now, not too many people believe that which is why the Templars have the support they do.

-Polaris

I'm actually curious if TPTB will actually have Hawke's decision to spare or kill Anders have an impact, outside of Sebastian and his possible behavior in ruling Starkhaven (if he becomes the new Prince).

[phaonica]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]phaonica wrote...

And it would seem that the devs felt that whatever happened with Connor or other apostates or the circle mages in DAO didn't portray the danger the way they wanted to, that is to say in such a way that it could create a significant enough divide between the players' choices. [/quote]

By providing players with a plethora of insane and stupid mage antagonists who made no sense.[/quote] By giving players multiple examples of mages who are a danger to those around them.

[quote]phaonica wrote...

I'm not sure where it says that demons only possess those with a presence in the fade. [/quote]

The Circle mages who are in the Fade at Ostagar aren't conscious in the real world, and in the codex, neither were the Tevinter mages at Aeonar.[/quote]

Neither the Circle mages at Ostagar, nor the Aeonar mages were possessed, either. What's your point? I am inclined to agree that mages don't enter the fade at will. I am also inclined to agree that they aren't conscious of both worlds at once, only one or the other (though why you take the Aeonar codex, which was written by someone in the Chantry, at face value doesn't make sense, but whatever). But where does it say a mage has to be *in* the fade to become possessed?

[LobselVith8]

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

By providing players with a plethora of insane and stupid mage antagonists who made no sense.

By giving players multiple examples of mages who are a danger to those around them.

You mean fools who don't even make sense in the context of the narrative they are in? Decimus thinking that elves, a dwarf, and an apostate are templars? A serial killer who acts absurdly over-the-top? A woman who wants revenge against the man who rescued her? A First Enchanter who loses his mind because his companion defeated templars? None of this shows me that mages are a danger, but that the writing for the antagonists is asinine.

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Circle mages who are in the Fade at Ostagar aren't conscious in the real world, and in the codex, neither were the Tevinter mages at Aeonar.

Neither the Circle mages at Ostagar, nor the Aeonar mages were possessed, either. What's your point? I am inclined to agree that mages don't enter the fade at will. I am also inclined to agree that they aren't conscious of both worlds at once, only one or the other (though why you take the Aeonar codex, which was written by someone in the Chantry, at face value doesn't make sense, but whatever). But where does it say a mage has to be *in* the fade to become possessed?

My point is that mages aren't supposed to be conscious in the real world when they enter the Fade, and we know that wasn't the case with the two examples in Dragon Age 2. And as for your question - a mage needs to lose to a demon (i.e. the Harrowing) or make a deal with the respective demon (i.e. Connor) in order to become possessed.

[Killjoy Cutter]

DA2 plays fast and loose with the lore of demons from DA:O, allowing conscious mages to be possessed in moments of great duress or weakness.

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

How about the part in the Lore that says that Demons approach mages while they are in the fade and attempt to take them over.

Even though you didn't source that, just because a demon approached someone in the fade doesn't mean one might be on standby waiting to be given the go ahead from a mage outside of the fade.

Of course what DA2 doesn't tell you (and you have to hunt to find it in obscure codex entries) is that Kirkwall has a virtually non-existant veil, but a casual player would never know this.

Then it is potentially not a contradiciton of lore, just an obscure piece of lore that not every player or Hawke would know.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]phaonica wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]phaonica wrote...

And it would seem that the devs felt that whatever happened with Connor or other apostates or the circle mages in DAO didn't portray the danger the way they wanted to, that is to say in such a way that it could create a significant enough divide between the players' choices. [/quote]

By providing players with a plethora of insane and stupid mage antagonists who made no sense.[/quote] By giving players multiple examples of mages who are a danger to those around them.

[quote]phaonica wrote...

I'm not sure where it says that demons only possess those with a presence in the fade. [/quote]


The Circle mages who are in the Fade at Ostagar aren't conscious in the real world, and in the codex, neither were the Tevinter mages at Aeonar.[/quote]

Neither the Circle mages at Ostagar, nor the Aeonar mages were possessed, either. What's your point? I am inclined to agree that mages don't enter the fade at will. I am also inclined to agree that they aren't conscious of both worlds at once, only one or the other (though why you take the Aeonar codex, which was written by someone in the Chantry, at face value doesn't make sense, but whatever). But where does it say a mage has to be *in* the fade to become possessed?
[/quote]

The game lore states many times that Demons approach a mage while in the fade and tries to make a connection there, and an abomination is controlled by a demon from the fade (which is why some abominations can be cured by going into the fade, defeating the demon there, and cutting the connection).  Only when a demon (or abomination) is in solid form (i.e. in the real world) can it force another mage (or actually anyone) to be possessed without them being in the fade first.[/quote]

The only exception seems to happen when the veil is extremely thin (and even then in the Calling, Fiona only lost control when she was asleep).  So Lob has it right, DA2 disregards it's own lore to try to make mages look even worse and even more of a threat then they really are.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  The established lore is pretty clear.  A mage is unconscious (but aware unlike most sleepers) while in the fade and demons appraoch the mage in the fade.  In fact the established lore makes a big deal out of this.  I also not that abominations can't be summoned or come out of the ground either, but DA2 makes a hash out of that too.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 30 septembre 2011 - 07:13 .

[IanPolaris]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

DA2 plays fast and loose with the lore of demons from DA:O, allowing conscious mages to be possessed in moments of great duress or weakness.

Which is contrary to established lore. 

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

There is NOTHING in the lore which states that, while awake, a mage can't be possessed. Actually we got a very clear case of a wake mage getting possessed in DA:O. So I honestly don't see where you are comming from.

[Killjoy Cutter]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There is NOTHING in the lore which states that, while awake, a mage can't be possessed. Actually we got a very clear case of a wake mage getting possessed in DA:O. So I honestly don't see where you are comming from.

Which case is that, in DA:O?  I think I know which one you're thinking of. 

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There is NOTHING in the lore which states that, while awake, a mage can't be possessed. Actually we got a very clear case of a wake mage getting possessed in DA:O. So I honestly don't see where you are comming from.

Only with the help of a demon in solid form and under duress and under the effect of a blood ritual.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  If you are refering to Uldred he opened himself to the veil in the act of summoning a demon in a blood ritual which is a special case if I've ever seen one.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 30 septembre 2011 - 07:15 .

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There is NOTHING in the lore which states that, while awake, a mage can't be possessed. Actually we got a very clear case of a wake mage getting possessed in DA:O. So I honestly don't see where you are comming from.

You're missing the point. It's being addressed that a mage can't be possessed if the mage doesn't enter the Fade to encounter a demon or isn't encountering a demon in the real world via a weakened Veil or through demonology.

[phaonica]

LobselVith8 wrote...

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

By providing players with a plethora of insane and stupid mage antagonists who made no sense.

By giving players multiple examples of mages who are a danger to those around them.

You mean fools who don't even make sense in the context of the narrative they are in? Decimus thinking that elves, a dwarf, and an apostate are templars? A serial killer who acts absurdly over-the-top? A woman who wants revenge against the man who rescued her? A First Enchanter who loses his mind because his companion defeated templars? None of this shows me that mages are a danger, but that the writing for the antagonists is asinine.

I'm not arguing that these antagonists are insane or stupid. My argument is that people in general have the capacity to go insane, make stupid decisions, make senseless conclusions. I think that there are potentially more interesting antaonists than this group, sure. But there is a difference between writing a character to be illogical, and expecting that no person is ever going to act as illogically as said character.

LobselVith8 wrote...

My point is that mages aren't supposed to be conscious in the real world when they enter the Fade, and we know that wasn't the case with the two examples in Dragon Age 2.

Okay, who are you referring to that is conscious while also in the Fade?

And as for your question - a mage needs to lose to a demon (i.e. the Harrowing) or make a deal with the respective demon (i.e. Connor) in order to become possessed.

And if the deal is "holy crap, I'm being attacked and want to be possessed to help me survive!" why does this have to occur in the Fade?

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

And if the deal is "holy crap, I'm being attacked and want to be possessed to help me survive!" why does this have to occur in the Fade?

Because Demons need a fade connection to "possess" a body, and that can only be established in the fade itself or by another demon or an open act of demonology.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  This is why Tranquil are thought to be immune from possession, i.e. they lack a connection to the fade.  It turns out though that Tranquil can be possessed but it requires a lot of help (ie a demon in the physical realm to do it....see DAO circle tower).

Modifié par IanPolaris, 30 septembre 2011 - 07:18 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There is NOTHING in the lore which states that, while awake, a mage can't be possessed. Actually we got a very clear case of a wake mage getting possessed in DA:O. So I honestly don't see where you are comming from.

Only with the help of a demon in solid form and under duress and under the effect of a blood ritual.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  If you are refering to Uldred he opened himself to the veil in the act of summoning a demon in a blood ritual which is a special case if I've ever seen one.

Nevertheless... There ARE cases of mages being possessed while fully awake. Ergo, you are wrong to claim that a mage MUST be asleep. Apprently great distress weakens the mages mental barriers enough for demons to force possession. That doesn't break the lore in anyway.

[LobselVith8]

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean fools who don't even make sense in the context of the narrative they are in? Decimus thinking that elves, a dwarf, and an apostate are templars? A serial killer who acts absurdly over-the-top? A woman who wants revenge against the man who rescued her? A First Enchanter who loses his mind because his companion defeated templars? None of this shows me that mages are a danger, but that the writing for the antagonists is asinine.

I'm not arguing that these antagonists are insane or stupid. My argument is that people in general have the capacity to go insane, make stupid decisions, make senseless conclusions. I think that there are potentially more interesting antaonists than this group, sure. But there is a difference between writing a character to be illogical, and expecting that no person is ever going to act as illogically as said character.

All these mage antagonists who are insane and stupid are illogical - that's the crux of the problem. There's no reason Decimus should think Hawke and his companions are templars, there's no reason Quentin should be putting spare parts together if he could simply ressurect his own wife with necromancy or act like a villain out of a Roger Corman movie, there's no reason Grace should want revenge against a man who helped rescue her from the templars, and there's no reason Orsino should lose his mind if Hawke defeats the invading templars who enter the room. Insane, stupid, and illogical mage antagonists.

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

My point is that mages aren't supposed to be conscious in the real world when they enter the Fade, and we know that wasn't the case with the two examples in Dragon Age 2.

Okay, who are you referring to that is conscious while also in the Fade?

Thrask's daughter and the unnamed mage who is being ganged up on by templars, towards the end of Act III.

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

And as for your question - a mage needs to lose to a demon (i.e. the Harrowing) or make a deal with the respective demon (i.e. Connor) in order to become possessed.

And if the deal is "holy crap, I'm being attacked and want to be possessed to help me survive!" why does this have to occur in the Fade?

Because a mage needs to deal with a demon, or lose to a demon, in order to be possessed.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There is NOTHING in the lore which states that, while awake, a mage can't be possessed. Actually we got a very clear case of a wake mage getting possessed in DA:O. So I honestly don't see where you are comming from.

Which case is that, in DA:O?  I think I know which one you're thinking of. 

Pretty much all the abominations we meet in DA:O really. From Kitty to Uldred.

[Killjoy Cutter]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There is NOTHING in the lore which states that, while awake, a mage can't be possessed. Actually we got a very clear case of a wake mage getting possessed in DA:O. So I honestly don't see where you are comming from.

Which case is that, in DA:O?  I think I know which one you're thinking of. 

Pretty much all the abominations we meet in DA:O really. From Kitty to Uldred.

In the case of Kitty, the demon was already manifest in the physical world. 

In the case of Uldred, it's unclear if the demon was manifest, but the possession did occur at the height of a powerful ritual IIRC. 


The real issue in (DA:O) seems to be that, the demon must be on the same side of the Veil as the consciousness it is trying to displace / dominate.  If the Veil has been sundered, that counts as well.