260 réponses à ce sujet

[TJPags]

Regarding Connor - I wonder if all those dead people, and their families, consider him a "minor risk". I also wonder if they will be happy to know Connor was "cured".

How many people were in that castle again? How many dead in Redcliffe?

And no, Connor wasn't "evil". He was an easy target.

[LobselVith8]

I'm fairly certain Ian is addressing the majority of mage antagonists in the narrative, who are insane and stupid, with Danarius being a possible exception.

I don't see what's compelling about making the majority of the mage antagonists inane buffoons who don't make sense, or how anyone is shown the "dangers of magic" by illustrating villainous mages out of a Saturday Morning Cartoon show. Making mage antagonists insane and stupid to the point of absurdity makes the mage debate pointless.

[Dave of Canada]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Keran for the Templars, and I'd also add into it Olivia (Thrask's daughter) who spontaneously became an Abomination for no reason. Prior to that, she was sane. There's also Merrill and personally I'll throw in Orsino prior to him going all Harvestino for no reason for the pro-mage people.

I'd have thrown in Orsino, though the insanity that peeks him at the end (after the player already decided if they wanted to support the mages or templar) "disqualified" him. Otherwise a few more mages could've been added to the list simply because of how they react near the end.

You have a point with Olivia and Keran, so another in favour of the mages and templar!

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

In DA2 though, I don't think I have seen any really heavy damage caused by any one single mage there, and having nearly all mages there be insane undermines the danger, in my opinion. Were they really that dangerous, they would cause a lot more damage than they did - as it was, most abominations were laughably easy to kill and the mages didn't seem like a bigger threat to me than the waves upon waves upon waves upon waves of bandits and members of the Carta assaulting me every time I went out for an evening stroll. It didn't really say "magic is dangerous!" as much as "no one should ever drink the water in Kirkwall" to me.

They'd be a lot more dangerous if we removed gameplay mechanics, they can't throw five super amazingly strong abominations against us while every previous fight was easy and hope we win. Though they've suggested they're going to make abominations a lot more difficult to defeat, which should help.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 01 octobre 2011 - 01:47 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Are we just talking Kirkwall mages here, Dave? If not, I'd argue that Marethari should get a place on that list as well.

[WhiteKnyght]

What happened at the Chantry was awful. But at the end of the day it was the act of a single man. Judging the whole for the actions of one person/group is never justified.

If the bombing hadn't happened the war would have still occurred in my opinion. Meredith was being corrupted more and more by the idol and might have convinced herself that the Grand Cleric and Divine were under the thrall of blood magic(a self explanation of why her annulment requests were denied) and killed Elthina so she'd have the authority to invoke it.

[TEWR]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Keran for the Templars, and I'd also add into it Olivia (Thrask's daughter) who spontaneously became an Abomination for no reason. Prior to that, she was sane. There's also Merrill and personally I'll throw in Orsino prior to him going all Harvestino for no reason for the pro-mage people.

I'd have thrown in Orsino, though the insanity that peeks him at the end (after the player already decided if they wanted to support the mages or templar) "disqualified" him. Otherwise a few more mages could've been added to the list simply because of how they react near the end.

You have a point with Olivia and Keran, so another in favour of the mages and templar!

I definitely think though that Bioware slipped on using the Mages and Templars to their fullest potential. Not just in terms of the Mage-Templar conflict, but in terms of proper characterization.

The few good Templars and Mages we meet are offset by the number of insane ones we meet. Mainly because the insane ones are more prominent than the few good ones. What good ones we see are usually only there for a brief amount of time.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 01 octobre 2011 - 01:57 .

[Dave of Canada]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Are we just talking Kirkwall mages here, Dave? If not, I'd argue that Marethari should get a place on that list as well.

I'd add her to the list but most pro-mage people think she's insane and stupid because she let the demon possess her to "protect" Merrill.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 01 octobre 2011 - 01:54 .

[TEWR]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Are we just talking Kirkwall mages here, Dave? If not, I'd argue that Marethari should get a place on that list as well.

Ehh... I wouldn't put her there.

[TEWR]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Are we just talking Kirkwall mages here, Dave? If not, I'd argue that Marethari should get a place on that list as well.

I'd add her to the list but most pro-mage people think she's insane and stupid because she let the demon possess her to "protect" Merrill.

Most pro-Merrill people.

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

We don't meet a single NPC mage that isn't an insane idiot in DA2.  Even DG admitted they went overboard there.

-Polaris

"Sane" Mages:
Feynriel

Struggles with dreams and will be made tranquil if you don't intervene.  Not exactly sane material and used to bludgen over our heads how "helpless" mages are in the fade when in reality Feynriel is a special sort of mage.

Bethany

Is a PC/Controlled Chacter so she doesn't count (and neither does Merrill for the same reason).

Alain
Emile (though he's insane if he thought anybody would hook up with him without trying to get into his money)
Ella

All three are pretty much faceless victims and Aliain is in fact a bloodmage, and Emile is an idiot.

Solivitus
Total: 5(6).

Is tranquil (he has to be in order to be a formorian...read up the codex entry on the formorians) and so he doesn't count either.

"Sane" Templar:
Thrask
Wesley
Cullen (though by most of your standards, he doesn't fit here)
Agatha
Emeric
Total: 4(5).

Now compare the insane ones we see.  In addition we only hear about the Templar abuses off screne but we have to witness and fight the crazy mages all the time.  Even DG admitted it was not a fair sampling and openly regretted it.

Oh dear, it looks like both sides are almost identical. Oh no, the poor mages!

No they aren't if you count honestly.  Even the Devs admit this.

-Polaris

[Sepewrath]

That was never justified, no matter who did it. If having a cause was a real excuse, no one would ever have to take responsibility for their actions.

^You saw just as many crazy Templar's as mages, with less reason for their crazy and abuses, since they were the ones with the power. The only thing is they didn't show the Templar abuses outside of Alrik, while the mage abuses is just blood magic.

Modifié par Sepewrath, 01 octobre 2011 - 02:42 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

My point is that abominations shouldn't be "five-in-a-row" enemies, they should be rare and very strong. Boss-fight like.

Strong, boss-like? Why? Isn't the power of an abomination dependent entirely on the power of the demon possessing the mage?

It would work better if they showed us what kind of carnage they are supposedly capable of. Meredith's sister killed, what, 70 villagers in one go?

They can show a few such, I guess. An abomination of desire/pride demon, say.

If they showed a scene were we actually saw some of that, it would do much more to convince me than having them crop up like fleshy dandelions all over the place. Game mechanics needn't have anything to do with it.

In this case, having them crop up like fleshy dandelions isn't so unbelievable. It would be if on average this were true, but we're talking about Kirkwall here, where the Veil is supposed to be thin, where mages on average seem like they'd fail battles of wills against demons.

[TEWR]

Struggles with dreams and will be made tranquil if you don't intervene. Not exactly sane material and used to bludgen over our heads how "helpless" mages are in the fade when in reality Feynriel is a special sort of mage.

he's a mage who has had no training at all. He's also a type of mage that hasn't been seen for centuries. Expecting him to master his powers is really odd.

He's a sane person if Hawke doesn't make him tranquil or an abomination.

Is a PC/Controlled Chacter so she doesn't count (and neither does Merrill for the same reason).

I disagree. She's her own person with her own personality and character. She cannot be controlled in that regard. That the player can control her in battle doesn't mean anything. Gameplay =/= lore.

Is tranquil (he has to be in order to be a formorian...read up the codex entry on the formorians) and so he doesn't count either.

wrong. The Formari consist of mostly Tranquil, but enchantments are not strictly something that are made only by Tranquil (look at the Dwarves). Tranquil are the only ones who can make enchantments that use lyrium because they can now handle it, however not all enchantments use lyrium. Urzara's Tooth is proof of this.
 
Also, Tranquil have a brand on their forehead (which Solivitus does not). The brand was something Bioware wanted to put in DAO, but for some reason didn't (either they forgot or the engine wouldn't allow it or something)

Add into that the fact that he shows emotion (finding an unintentional pun funny) and there's no way in hell he's a Tranquil

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 01 octobre 2011 - 03:06 .

[IanPolaris]

Um the Lore is very clear that either you are a Dwarf or you are Tranquil in order to do enchantments. Actual mages are especially suseptible to Lyrium poisoning, but it's made very clear in the lore that anyone that isn't a Deep Dwarf or Tranquil simply can not take the Lyrium exposure needed to enchant. I agree that Sol doesn't act much like a tranquil, but the codex and lore are unambigious on this point. If you are part of the Formori order, you ARE a tranquil mage. No exceptions (except maybe Deep Dwarf observers).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Um Tranquil don't have a brand in DAO so it doesn't seem to be a universal thing. See Orwain for one.

-Polaris

[MichaelFinnegan]

Gervaise wrote...

I tried to avoid giving away too much in the title because of posters who are new to the game but I am looking to get an answer to something that has been bugging me for some time now - people who are seemingly okay with justifying terrorism to further a cause -

One has to be clear with the usage of terms. Others might not see it in the same vein as the act being one of "terrorism." In fact, the lines thin, and blur, and shift, as far as I see it.

and so I thought I would throw out the question that Sebastian puts to Hawke "If it had been me in the Chantry would you even be asking if you should kill him", but instead substitute Anders for Sebastian, just in case people's mortality had actually been shaped by their feelings for Anders.

Yes, leniency might depend on a person's attitude toward or relationship with Anders.

So in this hypothetical version of the story Anders has a genuine change of heart as a result of Hawke's influence (as he claims to do but actually doesn't).  He realises the bomb is not justice and goes to the Chantry to remove it/warn Elthina but his "friends" in the resoluntionists realise what he is going to do and set it off with him in the building.   Anders is killed along with the other people in the Chantry.    Meredith still calls the RoA, the war still happens as the resolutionist's intended.     Do you still think the bomb is justifiable?

No. I didn't think it was justifiable when Anders used it, either.

If you are presented with the resolutionist that planted the bomb, would you still spare them?   (Obviously people who killed Anders need not answer this question)

And, no, I wouldn't kill him/her/them. I don't believe in killing people in cases other than as acts of self-defense.

In any case, just because people might not decide to kill Anders (or your hypothetical "other"), it doesn't mean they'd condone the act itself. These are two separate questions.

And, in fact, I was seeking for an option to turn Anders over to the authorities (like the City Guard), which wasn't available, sadly.

[Dave of Canada]

@Polaris: Then pretend it's another retcon that invalidates your point for the sake of the anti-mage agenda.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 01 octobre 2011 - 03:09 .

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

@Polaris: Then pretend it's another retcon that invalidates your point for the sake of the anti-mage agenda.

Why can't you admit what the Devs already have.  They went way overboard and protraying all the mage antagonists as insane, powerhungry, blood-magic, demon summoning idiots.

If DG can admit this, why can't you?

-Polaris

[TJPags]

IanPolaris wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

@Polaris: Then pretend it's another retcon that invalidates your point for the sake of the anti-mage agenda.

Why can't you admit what the Devs already have.  They went way overboard and protraying all the mage antagonists as insane, powerhungry, blood-magic, demon summoning idiots.

If DG can admit this, why can't you?

-Polaris

So they did.  What does that have to do with anything?

I mean, if you accept that they did this, then you have to accept that the mages in Kirkwall are insane, powerhungry, demon-summoning blood mages, right?

Should make it easier for you to accept that some players find them dangerous enough to wipe out.

[Dave of Canada]

I acknowledge it but I don't cling to it, he admit that they went overboard on a few things but that doesn't mean they were intentionally trying to make people support the Templar or that they hate mages.

You seem to have a problem believing Dragon Age 2 wasn't built to not be anti-mage and you cling to his words as gospel when it supports your point, yet you have no trouble telling him in his face he's wrong and hates mages.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 01 octobre 2011 - 03:15 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Strong, boss-like? Why? Isn't the power of an abomination dependent entirely on the power of the demon possessing the mage?

It is, but according to what people say of abominations, even weak ones can do a lot of damage. Maybe they're exaggerating, I don't know.

I suppose the question ought to be: do these abominations have powers more or less than the average hunger demon? I didn't think so. I just put them all under the category of hunger demons.

Anyway, if they're not, I'd expect even the weakest of them to be stronger than your usual bandit and that often isn't the case.

Yes, that could be true. But, in the game, are abominations as numerous as the usual bandits? I somehow didn't think so.

In this case, having them crop up like fleshy dandelions isn't so unbelievable. It would be if on average this were true, but we're talking about Kirkwall here, where the Veil is supposed to be thin, where mages on average seem like they'd fail battles of wills against demons.

There should never have been a Circle built in Kirkwall, clearly.

But it was. We ought to pause for a second on this. Why was a Circle built in Kirkwall? There could be reasons we're not yet made privy to.

[TEWR]

IanPolaris wrote...

Um Tranquil don't have a brand in DAO so it doesn't seem to be a universal thing. See Orwain for one.

-Polaris

I know Owain didn't have one, but I recall that one of the Bioware devs said that they had intended to have the brand in DAO but I cannot remember the reason given why it wasn't used.