108 réponses à ce sujet

[esper]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Not necessarily, you can see a lot of dots and then connect them because you brain wants them to be connected. That doesn't mean that there is a pattern for anyone than you.
We have a pretty infamous school example in Denmark with two stastic and an common lie where we tell little children that the Stork comes with the babies:
Statistic 1: Birth rate is getting lower every year in a certain time period
Statistic 2: The stork (a kind of bird, my dictionary is weird here) is getting rarere in the same time period.

Weird pattern that there are not really there: Birth rate/The stork are both dropping, ergo it is true that the Stork comes with the little babies.

The only pattern there are is: Birth rate is dropping and the Stork is getting rare. The two dots is not in anyway connected unless we want the connection and thus look for it.

That's.... not really the same thing. The mind of a child is different from the mind of an adult.

You are not showing the statistic to the children, you are showing it to the adults and saying. Look your childhood stories were true. Children don't care about statistic. For them the Stork comes with the baby and Santa Claus exist and that is that.  It is the adult that makes the pattern.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Depending on how crazy the band of three was it could be the same.
They found a glyph in a former Tevinter city. In itself not suprising, they found more than one, still not suprising, but the two glyphs might not be connected. They could have been drawn by two different magisters for all we know, We sure never saw them and anyone other than the band of three didn't see them.
The streets are formed as a glyph... Really? Which map did they look on, all of them, one of them. Was all the streets drawn of it? Did they take every little alley or shortcut into consideration or just the ones that fit their view? Again without other people than the band of three being able to see the pattern their words sadly means little as they were looking for something and thus is naturally inclinced to find what they are looking for.

As I said above, rereading the interview Gaider did confirm that the Band of Three were right that the Magisters did attempt something and the remnants of it are there.

Which means that the Band of Three aren't conspiracy theorists or crazy.

Oh... Yes they are. Every scientiest runs this risk if they have a subject they are grossly invovled in. And the band of three were deeply invovled in their subject and no where does it proves that they are any bit actually scientist and not just detirminded to see Kirkwall as the gate of hell and prove the evil of the ancient magisters.

What the magisters were up to could easily be Corypheus and his people. It could also easily not be. But unless we gets a different explanation or see more in game evidence. I see no reason that we should assume otherwise.

[TEWR]

If that's the case then your point about it being weak storytelling because the magisters just did it for kicks despite all the lore they put in with the Band of Three, kind of crumbles.

Hence why I said up above that I jumped the gun and even said mea culpa.

However, it will be weak storytelling methinks if they don't follow up on it and it remains as just an excuse to justify a focus on gameplay.

[TEWR]

You are not showing the statistic to the children, you are showing it to the adults and saying. Look your childhood stories were true. Children don't care about statistic. For them the Stork comes with the baby and Santa Claus exist and that is that. It is the adult that makes the pattern.

I don't think any adult would honestly believe storks are the source of babies.

If they do, then I pity them.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. If your argument is that the adults tell the children the whole stork-baby schtick, that's not the same thing because the adults are lying to the children.

If you're saying the adults believe the whole stork-baby schtick, then it goes back to me pitying any adult that honestly believes such a thing. Especially when there are classes meant to educate society on where babies come from.

Oh... Yes they are. Every scientiest runs this risk if they have a subject they are grossly invovled in. And the band of three were deeply invovled in their subject and no where does it proves that they are any bit actually scientist and not just detirminded to see Kirkwall as the gate of hell and prove the evil of the ancient magisters.

The Band of Three wanted to ascertain just what the Magisters were up to. They never claimed to know and only assumed that it would be a second invasion into the Black City to compound their previous folly.

They never once stated it as fact. Merely a possibility. That is not the same thing.

What the magisters were up to could easily be Corypheus and his people. It could also easily not be. But unless we gets a different explanation or see more in game evidence. I see no reason that we should assume otherwise.

Two things:

1) Corypheus can only affect those creature that bear the taint, as Larius stated and a codex entry by a Warden also said. So the Magisters of Kirkwall wouldn't have been doing anything to help Corypheus unless they were tainted and didn't look like Darkspawn or Ghouls.

And I don't see that happening anywhere in the DA media.

2) Corypheus was one of the original Magisters that invaded the Golden City.

Finally, considering David Gaider practically said that the Band of Three were on the right track, I'm going to take his word for it. You know, since he is the man upstairs and all that.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 14 février 2012 - 08:07 .

[esper]

philippe willaume wrote...

esper wrote...

Not necessarily, you can see a lot of dots and then connect them because you brain wants them to be connected. That doesn't mean that there is a pattern for anyone than you.
We have a pretty infamous school example in Denmark with two stastic and an common lie where we tell little children that the Stork comes with the babies:
Statistic 1: Birth rate is getting lower every year in a certain time period
Statistic 2: The stork (a kind of bird, my dictionary is weird here) is getting rarere in the same time period. 

Weird pattern that there are not really there: Birth rate/The stork are both dropping, ergo it is true that the Stork comes with the little babies. 

The only pattern there are is: Birth rate is dropping and the Stork is getting rare.  The two dots is not in anyway connected unless we want the connection and thus look for it.

Depending on how crazy the band of three was it could be the same.
They found a glyph in a former Tevinter city. In itself not suprising, they found more than one, still not suprising, but the two glyphs might not be connected. They could have been drawn by two different magisters for all we know, We sure never saw them and anyone other than the band of three didn't see them.
The streets are formed as a glyph... Really? Which map did they look on, all of them, one of them. Was all the streets drawn of it? Did they take every little alley or shortcut into consideration or just the ones that fit their view? Again without other people than the band of three being able to see the pattern their words sadly means little as they were looking for something and thus is naturally inclinced to find what they are looking for.

hello Esper

Well what is wrong is the sillogism.
But both patterns are true.
the birth rate is dropping and there is less storks each year.

What is wrong is to say
less stork = colder climate and colder climate=shrinkage of ....=> less babies

if i give you 2.3.5.7 some will see a pattern some will not see it, it does mot mean anything but it is there.

I see what you are getting at. It is basically the giant close way. for a long time the regularity of the hexogmal pattern led to the belief that it was man made where as it is very very likely to be a geological phenomenon but non the less the pattern is there.
phil

I also see what you are trying to say, but I think we are talking over each other's head.
There are Two Patterns there, but not third one which is what the theory claims is there.
Pattern one: Child birth.
Pattern two: Birds
Pattern that is not there unless you wants to see it: The pattern that connects Child Birth and Birds.
Unless of course you really want to be so... is the english word pedantic?... that you want to say, well there is a pattern of a a human tendency to draw numbers and a line on a paper. And then I would still argue that we are talking about the fourth pattern and not the third pattern which still does not proveable exist.

[Maria Caliban]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

That's.... not really the same thing. The mind of a child is different from the mind of an adult.

When it comes to common logical fallacies, they're not much different.

Aldandil wrote...

Well, I for one find it plausible that people who dig around in tunnels and looking in ancient tomes sometimes see connections that aren't really there.

That's true in real life, but a game is fiction. Imagine a murder mystery ending with 'the butler did it' but an author says later 'no, it was the maid.'

Here we have a side-quest with no purpose other than to mislead the players. It's not even like the Ashes quest from DA:O where there are party members who'll offer alternative explanations of what you're seeing.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 14 février 2012 - 08:25 .

[Blacklash93]

Can we at least all agree that, crazy excuse for blood mages or no, this would make for a very interesting tale to follow up on? I find the idea that all of Kirkwall was built for or at least adapted to be some giant, bizzare blood ritual to mysterious ends rather fascinating. It gives the city a dark character I'd love to see expanded on.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 14 février 2012 - 08:22 .

[esper]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

You are not showing the statistic to the children, you are showing it to the adults and saying. Look your childhood stories were true. Children don't care about statistic. For them the Stork comes with the baby and Santa Claus exist and that is that. It is the adult that makes the pattern.

I don't think any adult would honestly believe storks are the source of babies.

If they do, then I pity them.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. If your argument is that the adults tell the children the whole stork-baby schtick, that's not the same thing because the adults are lying to the children.

If you're saying the adults believe the whole stork-baby schtick, then it goes back to me pitying any adult that honestly believes such a thing. Especially when there are classes meant to educate society on where babies come from.

As I said it was a school example, if school example means something different in english (ie. Something that is only taught in school) then I am sorry for the misunderstanding.
It is basically and example of how NOT to draw a connection between two dots, not matter how logical it might seem. There might/might not have been someone who origanlly actually drew the conclusion at one time.
That being sad I have run into it on different occassion and there is always at least one person who cannot argue against the logic behind the argument.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Oh... Yes they are. Every scientiest runs this risk if they have a subject they are grossly invovled in. And the band of three were deeply invovled in their subject and no where does it proves that they are any bit actually scientist and not just detirminded to see Kirkwall as the gate of hell and prove the evil of the ancient magisters.

The Band of Three wanted to ascertain just what the Magisters were up to. They never claimed to know and only assumed that it would be a second invasion into the Black City to compound their previous folly.

They never once stated it as fact. Merely a possibility. That is not the same thing.

Every scientist work and a possibility or an hypothesis, so does every theorist, be they crazy or not. The problem is if you work with a possibilty or a theory long enough or just want it to be true bad enough. You might be consciously as well as unconsciously see only the things that confirm your possibility and be blind to the things that is deconfirm it. To make the band of three plausible we need someone outside the band of three to make confirm it as well.

I think, I am only saing this as a praise be you are so well formulated, that your are too genre-savey right now. You are so used to stories and games only presenting relevant information that you are not remembering that dragon age purposely serves wrong and hypothetical information, which means that among the last one are going to be some in game theories and hypothesis that are so far out that they are in fact irrelevant as all else than, Thedas have its share of people who like to make theories and be horrible wrong about it as well. 

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

What the magisters were up to could easily be Corypheus and his people. It could also easily not be. But unless we gets a different explanation or see more in game evidence. I see no reason that we should assume otherwise.

Two things:

1) Corypheus can only affect those creature that bear the taint, as Larius stated and a codex entry by a Warden also said. So the Magisters of Kirkwall wouldn't have been doing anything to help Corypheus unless they were tainted and didn't look like Darkspawn or Ghouls.

And I don't see that happening anywhere in the DA media.

2) Corypheus was one of the original Magisters that invaded the Golden City.

Finally, considering David Gaider practically said that the Band of Three were on the right track, I'm going to take his word for it. You know, since he is the man upstairs and all that.

Coryphues is some sort of magister and he was certainly up to something. What I was saying is that you are drawing a connection between Gaider saying that the magisters were up to something and the band of three. The connection might not exist. Granted, it might exist as well, but it might not.

As for the final part. Firstly wasn't the whole point of this discussion that newest interview which just says that this specific codex might not be that important.
Secondly, on the right track is far from right. The might have found all the dots, but connected them horrible wrong, the might have found only some dots and overlooked the key ones, the might have found some dots and invented some of their own in their head. In all those case they would be on the right track, but still going in a horrible wrong direction.

Edit... trying to fix quotes...

Modifié par esper, 14 février 2012 - 08:43 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

Well, I for one find it plausible that people who dig around in tunnels and looking in ancient tomes sometimes see connections that aren't really there.

That's true in real life, but a game is fiction. Imagine a murder mystery ending with 'the butler did it' but an author says later 'no, it was the maid.'

Well, if one ends reading the interview at, "It was a convenient location. It wasn't like they created Kirkwall to do something sinister," you'd be entirely right. There were two points that were brought up by Gaider - why Kirkwall was initially chosen for slave trade, and what made the Magisters carry out blood sacrifice rituals there. The latter was done because of the former. That is all he stated, and he didn't deny what was suggested by the research of BoT.

I simply fail to understand why it's so imporant for Kirkwall to have been founded just for the mere reason for carrying out some nefarious magical research. What does one hope to gain with that kind of reasoning? Wasn't it horrendous enough that things like this were happening that were tearing the Veil apart?

[esper]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

That's.... not really the same thing. The mind of a child is different from the mind of an adult.

When it comes to common logical fallacies, they're not much different.

Aldandil wrote...

Well, I for one find it plausible that people who dig around in tunnels and looking in ancient tomes sometimes see connections that aren't really there.

That's true in real life, but a game is fiction. Imagine a murder mystery ending with 'the butler did it' but an author says later 'no, it was the maid.'

Here we have a side-quest with no purpose other than to mislead the players. It's not even like the Ashes quest from DA:O where there are party members who'll offer alternative explanations of what you're seeing.

Execpt we knows that we have unreliable backgrounds stories in da.
A better example would be that we have a murder story where the main characters concludes it is the butler, but afterwards the readers finds out that it was the maid and it is presented logically enough. I have actually read criminal histories that build on that form more and less well.

We know that in dragon age myth does not equal truths as it sadly does in many other fantasy stories. Thus we should expect some information being place in the game with the sole purpose of making the players imagination run wild and make them come up with their own wild theories. We should expect misleading. if someone says that a whole city is a glyph or designed as a sign, your warning bells should ring untill you get the damn map.

[EmperorSahlertz]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

Well, I for one find it plausible that people who dig around in tunnels and looking in ancient tomes sometimes see connections that aren't really there.

That's true in real life, but a game is fiction. Imagine a murder mystery ending with 'the butler did it' but an author says later 'no, it was the maid.'

Well, if one ends reading the interview at, "It was a convenient location. It wasn't like they created Kirkwall to do something sinister," you'd be entirely right. There were two points that were brought up by Gaider - why Kirkwall was initially chosen for slave trade, and what made the Magisters carry out blood sacrifice rituals there. The latter was done because of the former. That is all he stated, and he didn't deny what was suggested by the research of BoT.

I simply fail to understand why it's so imporant for Kirkwall to have been founded just for the mere reason for carrying out some nefarious magical research. What does one hope to gain with that kind of reasoning? Wasn't it horrendous enough that things like this were happening that were tearing the Veil apart?

Apparently that is weak storytelling these days.

[WhiteKnyght]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Rereading the interview, you may actually be right. He seems to imply more that Kirkwall was originally built as just a slave trade hub, but then the Magisters did attempt something.

Specifically this section:

Yes and no. The thing to remember as well is that the Circles were created to help Thedas as well. We had the Blights, and the first Circles were created shortly after the first Blight. The mages become vitally important when there's a Blight in order to combat the darkspawn. So it wasn't like the Chantry wanted to cripple the mages, they wanted them to have the power they needed to help humanity. But to give on one you lose the other, there's a bit of a conundrum. As to what the Tevinters were up to in Kirkwall, when they realized what they had available, you had some mentions of it in the codex. I don't know whether we'll ever follow up on that story. Ultimately they did not succeed because the slaves eventually rebelled, there was the giant rebellion. What you have left is the remnants of what they were attempting at the time.


So I may have jumped the gun myself. Gaider does seem to state that the Magisters were attempting something years after realizing the "potential benefits" -- in the Magisters' minds -- of Kirkwall.

So mea culpa.

Which means that the Band of Three aren't conspiracy theorists, Filament and Esper.

Well as I said, the ritual the Magisters used to enter the Black City cost a lot of resources that Kirkwall arguably had. Slaves provide blood for power, and lyrium is an ore that can be mined. Usually by dwarves, but back then Tevinter and the Dwarven empire worked hand in hand.

Legacy established that the story about the Magisters is true, except some of the details are different than the Chantry's biased telling. But is it coincidence that they chose DAII to reveal the truth in? The game that takes place in Kirkwall. Or is it a hidden sign that Kirkwall is connected to it all?

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

As a note, I think Bioware tried too hard to push the "Blood mages = evil!" agenda. Just because a mage may use blood magic doesn't make him evil.

That's more the Templars/Chantry that push that. Unless you want to profile the collective of Kirkwall's mages by using Quentin, Orsino, and a few generic gangs placed just to give you more exp as an example. Quentin and Orsino are asses, that's a given. But they reveal it at the end that Orsino was helping him the whole time, it wasn't just two separate occurences.

But that doesn't make every blood mage inherently evil either. Merrill and Jowan are examples of that. Aside from the whole demon thing, Merrill used her blood magic pretty responsibly. And Jowan's biggest crime had almost nothing to do with his magic. Both were people that made mistakes and have to live with the consequences, but they aren't really bad people.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I've posted my ideas before, and I'll give a very brief snippet of what they were: Hawke could've still been these things -- a man caught up in events beyond his control and faced with a moral dilemma -- without the story or the characters suffering from it.

It's only a moral dillema if you believe the Chantry propganda that says "Magic is sin that destroyed heaven and turned our god against us."

Like Gaider said before correcting himself, the Chantry is awfully hypocritical about magic. That's how he meant it, but I think he corrected himself cause he didn't mean to put it that bluntly. Although sometimes bluntness is good. Seeing as the Templars will murder anybody that uses blood magic, but are allowed to use it themselves to keep the mages inside their cage, hypocrisy is clearly defined.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

So then why should we side with the Templars in DAII if Bioware was so intent on making almost all of Kirkwall's Templars the real problem? If they did their jobs right, Kirkwall wouldn't be in the state it's in.

Why should I side with the abusers and the people that won't do their job? What incentive do I have to do that if they are the reason things have fallen to pieces? How can I trust them to do their job if most of them have never once done it, save for a very scant few?

We need to see the abusers to show that the system is flawed, but we also need to see enough good Templars that do their job to feel confident in our choice being right. Even if it's debatable.

Probably for the same reason that Shepard is allowed to spare the Collector base and give it to Cerberus. Let's not forget that Bioware's games have a lot of common elements, just with a different twist(you could compare the plight of the Mages to the Krogans and the Genophage). There are ways to rationialize it, but ME3 reveals that it's probably the biggest mistake you can make.

As for what Hawke siding with the Templars will add to the story, time will tell. But one of the most famous people in Thedas(Defeating the Arishok and ousting the Qunari is news that would make Hawke well loved throughout Chantry lands) siding with the mage haters will probably make it a lot harder on mages come DAIII. Wheras siding with them makes more favour for them. Never underestimate the power of popularity.

The only good Templars I've really seen in Dragon Age are Cullen, Kerran, Thrask, and Evangeline. Cullen's got his traumat-induced prejudice, but in spite of that he's a good and well adjusted person.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 14 février 2012 - 10:34 .

[philippe willaume]

esper wrote...

I also see what you are trying to say, but I think we are talking over each other's head.
There are Two Patterns there, but not third one which is what the theory claims is there.
Pattern one: Child birth.
Pattern two: Birds
Pattern that is not there unless you wants to see it: The pattern that connects Child Birth and Birds.
Unless of course you really want to be so... is the english word pedantic?... that you want to say, well there is a pattern of a a human tendency to draw numbers and a line on a paper. And then I would still argue that we are talking about the fourth pattern and not the third pattern which still does not proveable exist.

Nope no argument there.
it is semantic more than anything else. (it really depends if a we consider a pattern as arrangement of repeated part or an arrangement of repeated parts logically linked)

We can prove that the events are not interrelated and that applying the pattern to different period of time does not follow a trend.
I.e. we can demonstrate that the logical link between the two event  is not a pattern but a coincidence. That being said that does not prevent the congruence of the two events to be true at a certain period of time; May be even in a periodic manner (i.e. in this case of third event that would affect both the birth rate and the migration of stokes).
 
 
Phil


 

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

As a note, I think Bioware tried too hard to push the "Blood mages = evil!" agenda. Just because a mage may use blood magic doesn't make him evil.

I suppose Merrill, Malcolm and potentially Hawke aren't BioWare creations?
Merrill certainly isn't evil, she may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but she did not let her Blood Magic corrupt her. She was not able to avert the tragedy that always follow blood magic though.
Malcolm is perhaps the perfect example of a blood mage who did not let it corrupt him. he never sought more power (as other blood mages often do), and sought only to lead a happy life with his family.
Hawke, needless to say, can be on either side of the spectrum.

Seems to me that BioWare also added sane and good blood mages, to show that blood magic isn't neccesarily corrupting.

[Corker]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

Well, I for one find it plausible that people who dig around in tunnels and looking in ancient tomes sometimes see connections that aren't really there.

That's true in real life, but a game is fiction. Imagine a murder mystery ending with 'the butler did it' but an author says later 'no, it was the maid.'

Here we have a side-quest with no purpose other than to mislead the players. It's not even like the Ashes quest from DA:O where there are party members who'll offer alternative explanations of what you're seeing.

^^This.

Unreliable narrators are great for certain things, especially in a world that's supposed to be more gray than black and white.  Humans have one story about the fall of the Dales, the Dalish have another.  The Chantry has one explaination about the formation of the darkspawn, but the dwarves think it's nonsense.  That's great.  We can see alternate viewpoints; we have to think about which ones we'll accept and which ones we'll reject.

They're even useful in worlds where exploration or discovery are going to be big themes.  Everyone thinks the world works one way, but really a revolution in thinking is coming that's going to turn magical theory or medicine or golem creation upside down and inside out.  I think DA might be doing this with the nature of Fade creatures, and it's nicely shown in some of the Anders/Merrill dialogues. 

But when too many inconsistencies - in a fictional world - are dealt with by invoking the unreliable narrator, you begin to undermine your worldbuilding.  Our only window into Thedas is via the game and the associated codices.  If there's not a certain level of trust in the information you're getting, then they're useless.  They could be the well-written but unhinged rantings of someone's lyrium-induced fever dream for all we know.  And if that's the case, why am I stopping to read them?

[Vit246]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Another thread said this a few weeks ago, but this is Lost all over again. They are just pulling plot ideas out of a hat and throwing them in game without really thinking how far they have to develop any of them.

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

As a note, I think Bioware tried too hard to push the "Blood mages = evil!" agenda. Just because a mage may use blood magic doesn't make him evil.

I suppose Merrill, Malcolm and potentially Hawke aren't BioWare creations?
Merrill certainly isn't evil, she may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but she did not let her Blood Magic corrupt her. She was not able to avert the tragedy that always follow blood magic though.
Malcolm is perhaps the perfect example of a blood mage who did not let it corrupt him. he never sought more power (as other blood mages often do), and sought only to lead a happy life with his family.
Hawke, needless to say, can be on either side of the spectrum.

Seems to me that BioWare also added sane and good blood mages, to show that blood magic isn't neccesarily corrupting.

I think if you have to bring up Merrill to me, then something's wrong with the universe.

Though I seem to recall you saying Hawke doesn't really count because he's the PC.

Yes Merrill, Malcolm, and additionally Jowan are good blood mages. Arguably the PCs as well (imo they fit the criteria). I never said that all blood mages were made out to be evil. Just that I think Bioware kinda pushed that one a bit too much.

It's all imo, mind you.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Well, then I'd like you to remember that a few bad apples spoils the bunch. All the mages of Thedas could have been doing good, but if only one of them did a sufficiently evil act, they would all suffer from it. Same goes for the mages in DA2. We are given quite a few good and honest mages, but the bad ones, and the severity of their crimes, simply eclipse them, and we tend to forget about them.

[TEWR]

Well, then I'd like you to remember that a few bad apples spoils the bunch. All the mages of Thedas could have been doing good, but if only one of them did a sufficiently evil act, they would all suffer from it. Same goes for the mages in DA2. We are given quite a few good and honest mages, but the bad ones, and the severity of their crimes, simply eclipse them, and we tend to forget about them.

I don't believe a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

One must remember that the associations one mage has must be taken into account. If he's a mage of a particular Circle and he does something heinous, then he of course must be held accountable. And it will cast that Circle in a bad light.

But if an apostate performs something heinous, he cannot be held accountable for a nearby Circle's actions. The Templars however can, because they're supposed to root out the evil mages in and near the Circle.

Additionally, an environment must be created where the mages feel comfortable being able to help and don't fear that something bad will happen. Had Orsino done what he did to someone like Gregoir, then it would reflect badly on the mages and Orsino especially. But given what we know about Meredith, his actions become understandable. Even noble in some ways, but not so noble for Hawke.

I'd also add that we don't know what Orsino was doing. We only know that he didn't inform the Templars, but perhaps he had connections on the outside that he was using to try and take down Quentin on his own. Maybe he began acting too late, and Leandra suffered for it and Hawke killed Quentin before doing anything.

We don't really know.

Also, if one mage out of a thousand did something horrible, one thousand mages don't deserve to die. If anything, that one mage deserves to die. Definitely, his horrid act should serve as an example to the other mages that they shouldn't do the same thing.

But, the Templars need to not go overboard with saying "Don't!". Going into DAII Templar mode is not needed. A balance must be struck between firm and understanding. Not to the point of becoming a jackass who gets his kicks off of abusing mages and believing he's doing the right thing, but also not to the point of severe leniency that you're taken advantage of.

All mages shouldn't suffer for an evil act, but they should definitely all learn from it.

[EmperorSahlertz]

I didn't mean it that a single mage's actions condemn all mages, or that one bad mage makes all other mages go bad. I meant that the actions of a single bad mage, makes the people of Thedas view ALL mages in a worse light. No matter how much good you do, it will always be your most hideous acts you will be remembered for. Same goes for reputation. An entire Circle of mages can be doing a lot of good work, but if only one of them goes bad and start killing people, the people of Thedas will think less of the Circle, despite what the Circle had already done.

In Da2 this manifests as the players focusing a bit too much on all the evil mages portrayed in the game, while completely forgetting all the good ones. There wasn't a whole lot more bad mages than good mages in DA2, there were simply more character development in the bad ones present, than there ever were in DA:O. And since they are more developed, they have a larer impact on us, and since the bad acts weighs a lot more than the good ones, the good amges fall into obscurity, eclipsed by the bad ones.

[WhiteKnyght]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I'd also add that we don't know what Orsino was doing. We only know that he didn't inform the Templars, but perhaps he had connections on the outside that he was using to try and take down Quentin on his own. Maybe he began acting too late, and Leandra suffered for it and Hawke killed Quentin before doing anything.

We don't really know.

That's actually not true.

http://dragonage.wik...from_the_Circle

When you're in Quentin's lair under the foundry, you can find this letter from Orsino in his living area. Orsino was literally aiding and abetting Quentin. And knew him well enough that Quentin would show him his research.

[MichaelFinnegan]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Well, if one ends reading the interview at, "It was a convenient location. It wasn't like they created Kirkwall to do something sinister," you'd be entirely right. There were two points that were brought up by Gaider - why Kirkwall was initially chosen for slave trade, and what made the Magisters carry out blood sacrifice rituals there. The latter was done because of the former. That is all he stated, and he didn't deny what was suggested by the research of BoT.

I simply fail to understand why it's so imporant for Kirkwall to have been founded just for the mere reason for carrying out some nefarious magical research. What does one hope to gain with that kind of reasoning? Wasn't it horrendous enough that things like this were happening that were tearing the Veil apart?

Apparently that is weak storytelling these days.

The thing is it's not immediately apparent what exactly is that strong storytelling. Otherwise, isn't it true that we're simply dealing with someone's notion of how that storytelling ought to be done?

[MichaelFinnegan]

Corker wrote...

Unreliable narrators are great for certain things, especially in a world that's supposed to be more gray than black and white.  Humans have one story about the fall of the Dales, the Dalish have another.  The Chantry has one explaination about the formation of the darkspawn, but the dwarves think it's nonsense.  That's great.  We can see alternate viewpoints; we have to think about which ones we'll accept and which ones we'll reject.

They're even useful in worlds where exploration or discovery are going to be big themes.  Everyone thinks the world works one way, but really a revolution in thinking is coming that's going to turn magical theory or medicine or golem creation upside down and inside out.  I think DA might be doing this with the nature of Fade creatures, and it's nicely shown in some of the Anders/Merrill dialogues. 

But when too many inconsistencies - in a fictional world - are dealt with by invoking the unreliable narrator, you begin to undermine your worldbuilding.  Our only window into Thedas is via the game and the associated codices.  If there's not a certain level of trust in the information you're getting, then they're useless.  They could be the well-written but unhinged rantings of someone's lyrium-induced fever dream for all we know.  And if that's the case, why am I stopping to read them?

I don't actually have the link for the Pax interview handy, but I had someone explain it to me once how the writers are going about adding the codex entries.

I think the notion of the "unreliable narrator" is coming simply as a consequence of how the writers are going about it. It's like an archaeology expedition in our world unearthing some new piece of evidence that sheds more light on what went on with some ancient civilization, that either destroys the previous understanding we hador it adds something to it, it fills in the gaps; or the perceived evidence might lead them completely astray. It's like a mental model one builds about something that one cannot really piece together objectively, because all the evidence is no longer there.

Given this, then, it'd be missing the point to think of all this as some kind of a "murder mystery" setting. DA is not a fictional setting like the one that Arthur Conan Doyle built - so to give unequivocal answers would be contrived, even contrary to its intended purpose - the best we can have are most likely explanations, which is what I think the Band of Three are claiming to have.

Look at how The Enigma of Kirkwall codex itself ends:
"I forswear my oaths. The magister's lore must be burnt and the ashes scattered. No good can come of it. And Maker help us if someone could answer what we could not."

The last remaining of the Three has probably destroyed whatever evidence he had; and he clearly thinks that he could not answer the questions (so there is no "the butler did it"). And he fears what the blood mages questing for power might do with that information. He thinks whatever he found is therefore not worth preserving. So I stand by what I said - I see no inconsistency with this particular codex. Yes, it promised to be a very interesting, but that's about it. The question then really becomes - do you really dig such kind of storytelling?

[Xilizhra]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I'd also add that we don't know what Orsino was doing. We only know that he didn't inform the Templars, but perhaps he had connections on the outside that he was using to try and take down Quentin on his own. Maybe he began acting too late, and Leandra suffered for it and Hawke killed Quentin before doing anything.

We don't really know.

That's actually not true.

http://dragonage.wik...from_the_Circle

When you're in Quentin's lair under the foundry, you can find this letter from Orsino in his living area. Orsino was literally aiding and abetting Quentin. And knew him well enough that Quentin would show him his research.

We don't how how old that letter is. We do know that Orsino called Quentin's research too dangerous and evil to use.