Aller au contenu

Photo

Mage-Templar Conflict morality


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
269 réponses à ce sujet

#76
The Elder King

The Elder King
  • Members
  • 19 630 messages

ianvillan wrote...



Your right I probably did exagerate a bit but it just seems to be shown how the mages have all the hardship and loss of liberties and the templars have none of the problems compared to the mages yet still seem to hate them and are always asking for the right of annulment even if the mages responcible have been dealt with.

Like in Dragon Age Origins where after you have saved the circle all that was left was mages who hadn't been blood mages yet the right of annulment is still called for.


Well, it was The Warden's decision to continue with the Right of Annulment, isn't it? If he said that the Circle is clear, Gregoir didn't purse the Annulment.
Though you may be referring in the case Irwing is dead? I think in this case the Circle will be destroyed, but I never try it.

#77
the_one_54321

the_one_54321
  • Members
  • 6 112 messages
Anders deserved to be beaten to death with a baseball bat a la The Godfather. The murder knife was far better than he deserved.

#78
LolaLei

LolaLei
  • Members
  • 33 006 messages

the_one_54321 wrote...

Anders deserved to be beaten to death with a baseball bat a la The Godfather. The murder knife was far better than he deserved.


Hawke could have put a bit of omph into it though, I found that scene a bit lackluster.

... Not that I dislike Anders, but if you're gonna kill one of your companions you might as well push the boat out!

#79
the_one_54321

the_one_54321
  • Members
  • 6 112 messages

LolaLei wrote...
you might as well push the boat out!

Is this a British idiom that I'm not familiar with? I'm confused... :huh:

#80
LolaLei

LolaLei
  • Members
  • 33 006 messages

the_one_54321 wrote...

LolaLei wrote...
you might as well push the boat out!

Is this a British idiom that I'm not familiar with? I'm confused... :huh:


"To push the boat out" - It means to do something in style/make a show of it, or do something with gusto.

#81
The Elder King

The Elder King
  • Members
  • 19 630 messages

Silfren wrote...


I think she did deserve death.  She allowed Meredith's tyranny to continue without even attempting to arrest it. 

I don't necessarily agree that she had to die for the mage/templar war to be sparked.  I'm fairly sure the blowing up of the Chantry would have ignited the smoldering powderkeg even if it had been completely empty.  But either way, given her utter negligence in the face of the ongoing abuses, I'm thrilled she got hers in the end.




I'd gladly know how Elthing could've arrest her. The Templars were at direct order of Meredith, and only in the final hours the Templars realized that Meredith was mad. Elthina has no military power. She could've asked the Divine to call an Exalted March on Kirkwall , but I guess this isn't what you want her to do, right?
The Templars, even before the events of DA2, held the power in Kirkwall, even during Dumar's reign. The precedent Viscount was killed because he wanted to cast away the Templars. Elthing couldn't have done more.
And you should remember that the mages in Kirkwall werent' exaclty innocent. The majority (if not all) the mages who exaped from the Circle in Kirkwall turned to blood magic. The First Enchanter helped a blood mage in his research.
And about the Chantry, I doubt that if the Chantry was empty the war would've triggered. Elthina would've probably negate the Right of Annulment again, because punishing all mages of the Circle for the action of an apostate (which the Templars should've captured years ago) isn't logical.

Modifié par hhh89, 12 avril 2012 - 10:06 .


#82
Pzykozis

Pzykozis
  • Members
  • 876 messages

hhh89 wrote...

Still better than approving the Right of Annulment, and I never said she was kind.
And I disagree, she wasn't killed because she was perpetuating the status quo. She was killed because as long as she was alive there wouldnt' be war between mages and templars  in Kirkwall. Ander killed her (along with a lot of innocent people) to start a war.
Regardless, she didn't deserve death. Orsino, Meredith and Anders deserved a lot more than her.


Sometimes doing nothing is worse than doing something.

She wasn't actively preserving the status quo but her inaction allowed it to happen anyway, she stuck to her belief which I can respect but she was hardly in anyway part of the solution.

I also wouldn't say she was killed precisely to start a war, war was fairly inevitable as a conclusion and maybe thats semantics but she was essentially removed because her only part in the arguement was of steadfast inaction, and something, anything needed to happen.

@Pushing boat out, it to me means more about going all out/ all in rather than just making a show of things usually used when talking about spending a fair bit of cash when really something could be done for cheaper, generally people push the boat out for weddings and the like. In for a penny in for a pound is kind of similar.

Modifié par Pzykozis, 12 avril 2012 - 10:15 .


#83
The Elder King

The Elder King
  • Members
  • 19 630 messages

the_one_54321 wrote...

Anders deserved to be beaten to death with a baseball bat a la The Godfather. The murder knife was far better than he deserved.


Well, he said he deserved death, even if you're in the friendship path (in the rivarly path he wants to be killed before Vengeance takes full control). He knows that the people who died in the Chantry deserved justice.

#84
The Elder King

The Elder King
  • Members
  • 19 630 messages

Pzykozis wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Still better than approving the Right of Annulment, and I never said she was kind.
And I disagree, she wasn't killed because she was perpetuating the status quo. She was killed because as long as she was alive there wouldnt' be war between mages and templars  in Kirkwall. Ander killed her (along with a lot of innocent people) to start a war.
Regardless, she didn't deserve death. Orsino, Meredith and Anders deserved a lot more than her.


Sometimes doing nothing is worse than doing something.

She wasn't actively preserving the status quo but her inaction allowed it to happen anyway, she stuck to her belief which I can respect but she was hardly in anyway part of the solution.

I also wouldn't say she was killed precisely to start a war, war was fairly inevitable as a conclusion and maybe thats semantics but she was essentially removed because her only part in the arguement was of steadfast inaction, and something, anything needed to happen.


So it'd have been better if she approved the Right of Annulment?
Her death (alongiside the people in the Chantry) was the trigger of the war. Meredith couldn't start the Annulment without her approval, and Orsino wouldn't have started a war (even in the las part of the game he wanted to stop the war, he was trying to save the mages, not starting a war).

#85
Huntress

Huntress
  • Members
  • 2 464 messages

hhh89 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

ianvillan wrote...




What exactly are the chantry and templars giving up in this arrangement, The Templars seem to be allowed to get married, have children and all the other thing mages are denied. Not to mention the chantry who have there own army of mages to use as they see fit in a war, but still preach hatred and persecution against the mages and will not hesitate to kill all of a circle if a few mages dont do as they want them too.


Yeah, well, that's not true, considering what it's hinted in DA2 and what happened in Asunder. What you said happened after DA2, and yet the Templars left the Chantry to fight and kill mages. If the Chantry wanted to eradicate all the circles, why the Templars left the Chantry?
And I should remind you that Elthina always negated Meredith the Right of Annulment, saving a lot of mages to certain death. And she was repayed with death.
I'm not a great supporter of the Chantry, but we should be honest. There are good and evil people on both side.


Meh.  Elthina wasn't "repayed with death" for her kindness in denying the Right of Annulment.  She was perpetuating the status quo.  That's why she was killed.


Still better than approving the Right of Annulment, and I never said she was kind.
And I disagree, she wasn't killed because she was perpetuating the status quo. She was killed because as long as she was alive there wouldnt' be war between mages and templars  in Kirkwall. Ander killed her (along with a lot of innocent people) to start a war.
Regardless, she didn't deserve death. Orsino, Meredith and Anders deserved a lot more than her.


You are wrong even if Elthina were alive there would have been war, she was doing Nothing and I am  sorry but telling to hawke.
Elthina: I know how hard it has being for mages but, my hands are tied and only the maker can....
hawke grab's the bomb that Anders has hidden in his ..belt?, put bomb inside Elthinas mouth, tape mouth and just before leaving:
Hawke:/wisper in Elthina ears :Send my regards to the maker and tell Andrastes she is ****.

#86
The Elder King

The Elder King
  • Members
  • 19 630 messages

Huntress wrote...


You are wrong even if Elthina were alive there would have been war, she was doing Nothing and I am  sorry but telling to hawke.
Elthina: I know how hard it has being for mages but, my hands are tied and only the maker can....
hawke grab's the bomb that Anders has hidden in his ..belt?, put bomb inside Elthinas mouth, tape mouth and just before leaving:
Hawke:/wisper in Elthina ears :Send my regards to the maker and tell Andrastes she is ****.


If "nothing" include negating the Annulment, I agree.
And again, if you think a way she could've stopped Meredith (or the templars of Kirkwall in general), I'd gladly listen to it. You all forget that the Templars in Kirkwall held an incredible and exceptional power. They were the one controlling Kirkwall even before Dumar. They killed a Viscount that wanted to cast them out. Elthing couldn't stop them (and neither the Divine, considering that the majority left the Chantry).
And I'm sorry, but I don't agree with terrorism, not in real life, not in a fantasy world. On friendship path Anders became a terrorist, nothing less, nothing more. That's my opinion on him, and that's why I'm going to make him a rival when and if I'm going to replay DA2.

edit: I'm not saying that the Chantry is a completely good organization, full of good people. Sister Petrice is the perfect example of that. I only don't understant the hate, or why Elthina deserved death. And I'll gladly know what do you think of Anders or what did you do to him.

Modifié par hhh89, 12 avril 2012 - 10:30 .


#87
Pzykozis

Pzykozis
  • Members
  • 876 messages

hhh89 wrote...

So it'd have been better if she approved the Right of Annulment?
Her death (alongiside the people in the Chantry) was the trigger of the war. Meredith couldn't start the Annulment without her approval, and Orsino wouldn't have started a war (even in the las part of the game he wanted to stop the war, he was trying to save the mages, not starting a war).


In my mind? Yes, it'd have shown the chantry to be pretty unsympathetic and callous but it would have been something, Elthina's refusal to choose something, anything at all basically caused the whole of Act 3 to happen.

Maybe we'd have not seen a war. but there would have been major problems occuring at some point soon and it'd have likely have been far worse than what did happen unfocused and uncoordinated and then mybe it'd have died down or stamped out, and then in another X amount of years we'd have the same problem again. Hell the circle in Ferelden which is supposedly quite lax has had two major rebellions in about 20 years, the current cycle as much as the current situation/status quo in Kirkwall was untenable.

#88
The Elder King

The Elder King
  • Members
  • 19 630 messages

Pzykozis wrote...

In my mind? Yes, it'd have shown the chantry to be pretty unsympathetic and callous but it would have been something, Elthina's refusal to choose something, anything at all basically caused the whole of Act 3 to happen.

Maybe we'd have not seen a war. but there would have been major problems occuring at some point soon and it'd have likely have been far worse than what did happen unfocused and uncoordinated and then mybe it'd have died down or stamped out, and then in another X amount of years we'd have the same problem again. Hell the circle in Ferelden which is supposedly quite lax has had two major rebellions in about 20 years, the current cycle as much as the current situation/status quo in Kirkwall was untenable.


The fact is that Chantry isn't (or at least, not all of the Chantry members) against the mages. After DA2, the Chantry wants peace, not war. They don't approve on the Templars's objectives of fighting and killing mages in a war. That's why they left the Chantry.
The situation in Kirkwall is different from any other places. The Templars held political power, so they are free to do what they want.
Elthing was trying a diplomatic, peaceful solution to the problems in Kirkwall. Maybe it wasn't the right thing, but that doesn't mean she deserved death (and neither the innocent in the Chantry). She didn't think the mages should've been killed, but she had no power to change the situation. She could've asked the Divine an Exalted March on Kirkwall, but that would've lead to the death of a lot more people.

Modifié par hhh89, 12 avril 2012 - 10:39 .


#89
Silfren

Silfren
  • Members
  • 4 748 messages

hhh89 wrote...

Silfren wrote...


I think she did deserve death.  She allowed Meredith's tyranny to continue without even attempting to arrest it. 

I don't necessarily agree that she had to die for the mage/templar war to be sparked.  I'm fairly sure the blowing up of the Chantry would have ignited the smoldering powderkeg even if it had been completely empty.  But either way, given her utter negligence in the face of the ongoing abuses, I'm thrilled she got hers in the end.




I'd gladly know how Elthing could've arrest her. The Templars were at direct order of Meredith, and only in the final hours the Templars realized that Meredith was mad. Elthina has no military power. She could've asked the Divine to call an Exalted March on Kirkwall , but I guess this isn't what you want her to do, right?
The Templars, even before the events of DA2, held the power in Kirkwall, even during Dumar's reign. The precedent Viscount was killed because he wanted to cast away the Templars. Elthing couldn't have done more.
And you should remember that the mages in Kirkwall werent' exaclty innocent. The majority (if not all) the mages who exaped from the Circle in Kirkwall turned to blood magic. The First Enchanter helped a blood mage in his research.
And about the Chantry, I doubt that if the Chantry was empty the war would've triggered. Elthina would've probably negate the Right of Annulment again, because punishing all mages of the Circle for the action of an apostate (which the Templars should've captured years ago) isn't logical.


By arrest, I meant "stop," by the way.  I should have avoided an unclear term, sorry. That said, as the Grand Cleric, Elthina was Meredith's superior.  She had the authority, and therefore the responsibility, of putting a stop to Meredith's abuses.  She wasn't exactly limited to asking the Divine for an Exalted March, either. 

I don't know whether Elthina could have actually been effective had she made the attempt.  Maybe she wouldn't have been.  Personally I'm not interested in discussing this point, because the fact remains, she DID NOT TRY.  It's entirely possible that, had she attempted to have Meredith removed from power, Elthina might have found herself utterly powerless to effectively accomplish that goal.  Again, however, we don't know that because SHE DID NOT TRY.  

I wouldn't dislike Elthina had the game's story indicated that Elthina actually did try to remove Meredith from power. 

It seems that Elthina's inaction is being defended on the grounds that she did nothing because there was nothing she COULD do.  I don't buy this, because it totally ignores the fact that Elthina was the freakin' Grand Cleric.  She was in a direct position of authority over Meredith.  I acknowledge that the situation may have been that Elthina did not have any actual, practical power, whatever her authority may have been.  Once again, however, she did indeed have the authority, and thus the responsibility.  She SHOULD have at least attempted to do something.

#90
The Elder King

The Elder King
  • Members
  • 19 630 messages

Silfren wrote...

By arrest, I meant "stop," by the way.  I should have avoided an unclear term, sorry. That said, as the Grand Cleric, Elthina was Meredith's superior.  She had the authority, and therefore the responsibility, of putting a stop to Meredith's abuses.  She wasn't exactly limited to asking the Divine for an Exalted March, either. 

I don't know whether Elthina could have actually been effective had she made the attempt.  Maybe she wouldn't have been.  Personally I'm not interested in discussing this point, because the fact remains, she DID NOT TRY.  It's entirely possible that, had she attempted to have Meredith removed from power, Elthina might have found herself utterly powerless to effectively accomplish that goal.  Again, however, we don't know that because SHE DID NOT TRY.  

I wouldn't dislike Elthina had the game's story indicated that Elthina actually did try to remove Meredith from power. 

It seems that Elthina's inaction is being defended on the grounds that she did nothing because there was nothing she COULD do.  I don't buy this, because it totally ignores the fact that Elthina was the freakin' Grand Cleric.  She was in a direct position of authority over Meredith.  I acknowledge that the situation may have been that Elthina did not have any actual, practical power, whatever her authority may have been.  Once again, however, she did indeed have the authority, and thus the responsibility.  She SHOULD have at least attempted to do something.


Remove Meredith of what power? Her political power of substituting the Viscount of her templar power over the Circle?
In the first case, I don't know if she had the power to do this, since the templars held power on Kirkwall long before the events of DA2, and the Chantry doesn't have (at least formally) the power to decide the new ruler.
In the second case, yes she could've tried to remove Meredith of her duty as Knight-Commander (which I don't know how Meredith and her loyal templars would've reacted, but that's not the point). The fact is, is this power (if they have that power, from what I remember the Knight-Commander responds for their action to the Grand Cleric, but there is no confirmation that the Grand Cleric has the power to strip the KC of their duty. Considering the last mission of DA2, it could very well be a duty of the Knight Captain), is regulated by the Chantry's law. We don't know if the laws of the Chantry are against what Meredith did on the Cicle.
She was indeed ruling over the Circle as a tyrant, but you should remember that the Kirkwall's Circle was ruled on fear for decades. It could be that laws of the Chantry aren't against this type of ruling over the Circles. If so, it's the duty of Divine of changing the rules, not of the Grand Cleric.
Plus, as I've said in my previous post, the situation in Kirkwall was critical. There were a lot of blood mages, both apostated that went in the city and Circle mages who studied blood magic, or Circle mages that in every occasion of fleeing decided to use blood magic. The Templars were indeed responsible for this, but the mages shouldn't have used blood mages. They even killed the Templar who supported them. They weren't that innocent, especially considering that the very First Enchanter helped a blood mage who wasn't even a member of the Kirkwall's Circle.
Regardless of this, even if Elthina was wrong on doing nothing (and she still block Meredith every time she asked of the RoA, but you probably think that this isn't worh much), she didn't deserve to die in that way, as the innocents who were present in the Chantry didn't deserve to die.

edit: I should make clear that in my opinion both the Templars and the mages in Kirkwall were wrong, and used the wrong methods (the Templars in their tyrannical rule, the mages in resorting on blood magic in every occasion). Still, in my only playthrough (for now) of DA2 at the end I decided to side with the mages, because it wasn't their fault that the Chantry was destroyed and a lot of people killed. They were innocent of that crime, so I can't support Meredith (which wanted a RoA for a long time, so she probably used the death of Elthina as an excuse) in destroying all mages.
That doesn't mean that I'm necessarily pro-mages. It depends on the situation. If Orsino and the Kirkwall mages was the ones who destroyed the Chantry and killed Elthina, I'd have supported Meredith.

Modifié par hhh89, 13 avril 2012 - 11:09 .


#91
LobselVith8

LobselVith8
  • Members
  • 16 993 messages
[quote]GodWood wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

So you're conflating people who have the right to pursue different lines of work, raise their own children, pursue romantic relationships with whomever they want to, travel to other regions, and who have the freedom to try to achieve different goals with Circle mages who lack those same rights?[/quote]

Circle mages can have all those rights bar having children.

True, some Circles don't allow some of those things, but others do. What the Circles need to do is have a universal set of rules for all cirlces to follow, preferably those of Fereldan's.

This would allow all those freedoms, except children. [/quote]

Circle mages only have certain privledges in the Circles of Magi, and even those vary depending on the particular Circle of Magi in question. Gaider even addressed that marriage is only permitted in some Circles, and some others forbid having any relationships. Travel is also forbidden except for a few cases, as with Wynne helping stop the Blight, or Ines researching a plant that was rumored to be able to grow in Blighted soil.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

So much is denied to them,[/quote]

So much is denied to everyone. Foruntately for mages significantly less is denied to them then what is denied to others. [/quote]

That isn't remotely accurate for the reasons I stated earlier. That should also be obvious from the fact that there are characters who condemn the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

And you think having food and living in a prison makes up for that? I don't understand that argument.[/quote]

It's not only food and shelter, its quality food and shelter, plus education, the ability to pursue the academic, the ability to wield immense power, the ability to find work, companionship, etc etc.

The common folk have little to no chance of having all this.

Really it's hardly a prison. As I've said before it's more or less a boarding school. [/quote]

"Immense power"? Cullen points out that templars have "dominance over mages by divine right." Greagoir only permitted seven mages to serve at Ostagar. The Chantry controlled Circles are condemned by some as slavery, from the historical Aldenon the Great to a pro-mage Hawke. In Amaranthine, Wynne addresses that the Chantry would rather kill every mage than see them free. You keep trying to paint this picture of the Chantry controlled Circles as some idyllic paradise, but it's not remotely accurate. It's a prison - as the VO for the Magi Origin confirms.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

In real life, people have risked their lives to leave brutal dictatorships, even when they had nothing, and risked poverty.[/quote]

To compare the general cirlce system to the living conditions of some of RL's most brutal dictatorships is laughable.

In these situations it's rarely the lack of excess liberty that drives these people away but rather poor living conditions, famine, war etc. [/quote]

Considering that Kirkwall mages are being tortured, raped, and made tranquil against the law, I would respectfully disagree.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Given that mages have fled the Circle, and even fought in rebellions, I don't see how you can try to paint the Chantry controlled Circle as though it was some idyllic paradise, especially when there are characters who condemn the institution as slavery.[/quote]

When I was younger I knew kids who would run away from school and claimed it was a prison.

Circles can be corrupt yes, but people can also be entitled whiny ****es. [/quote]

You seem to be forgetting that the narrator for the Magi Origin addresses that the Circle of Magi is a "prison." The player's introduction to the Circle of Ferelden as a mage protagonist is to be informed that they have been living in a prison since their powers first emerged.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Who is going to punish them?[/quote]

Whoever would normally punish a murderer. [/quote]

In a society that condemns mages and views magic as a curse?

[quote]GodWood wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

We know next to nothing about the hundreds of men, women, and children in the Circle of Kirkwall. We can't praise or condemn them when we are in a place of ignorance about them. Unless you propose that the many apostate antagonists, along the few Circle mages we actually met, should condemn the majority of mages we never actually meet?[/quote]

The templars were cracking down hard because many of the mages were using blood magic.

Yes, some templars went about it the wrong way but something had to be done. [/quote]

You mean the many apostates we meet outside the Circle of Kirkwall? How does that condemn the hundreds of mages we never meet as Hawke? That would be like blaming all the dwarves for the actions of the few dwarves who are members of the carta.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

They live under a monarchy, but the people have freedoms that virtually no Circle mage will ever know.[/quote]

Likle what?

The freedom to starve? The freedom to sleep cold, alone and homeless? The freedom to be poor? The freedom to be mauled by the many monsters that plague the land? The freedom to be killed by bandits? The freedom to have no access to decent medical treatment?

Do I really need to go on? Yes, the life of a mage isn't the perfect paradise you seem to want it to be but but it's infinitely better then the hardships of the average commoner.

If my choices were Fereldan circle or life of the commoner, I'd pick Circle every time.[/quote]

The freedom to pursue a romantic relationship, the freedom to marry, the freedom to find a job and make a home for themselves, the freedom to not be murdered simply for being a mage, the freedom to be able to walk down a street without worrying that someone would try to kill them simply for having magical ability, the freedom to travel without having armed and armored soldiers trying to murder them.

If my choices were between freedom and slavery, I would pick freedom every time.

#92
the_one_54321

the_one_54321
  • Members
  • 6 112 messages
"As a fish stranded on land knows the air, or a drowning man knows the sea, so does a mage know magic."

-Sten

Someone gets screwed. It's a matter of choosing who it will be.

#93
DKJaigen

DKJaigen
  • Members
  • 1 647 messages
From a pragmatical point of view i will be for the mages. If they are gone humanity is ****ed. From a moral point of view its still the mages because i dont trust the corrupt and retarded templars to handle any form of power and secondary i want to what the mages themselves can to make their magic safer for themselves and everyone around without those idiotic chantry prohibiting it

#94
LobselVith8

LobselVith8
  • Members
  • 16 993 messages

Dave of Canada wrote...

The common-folk are raped, killed, tortured and more without anybody interfering because the common-folk are worthless tools, they live their lives starving in the cold because they were born without magic or they're not noble. More so if you're an elf.


There are guards who stop crimes. There are even guards patrolling Darktown, as Aveline addresses.

Dave of Canada wrote...

Meanwhile, the mage suffers less injustices at the hands of the Templar while they've got better quality food, they've got education, they've got a roof over their head and they're allowed to do what they please within the tower (possibly outside if they don't screw up). Those poor mages.


We encounter the issues of mages getting raped, tortured, made tranquil and threatened with tranquility are clearly examples of how much better the Kirkwall mages have it in comparison to the common people who never have to worry about having their very humanity stripped from them, to be turned into emotionless husks. I can't agree with your view on this issue, as we see a plethora of problems arising because of the fact that templars have "divine right" over mages.

#95
DKJaigen

DKJaigen
  • Members
  • 1 647 messages

the_one_54321 wrote...

Silfren wrote...
You CAN do the one without the other.

How do you supervise a mage 24/7 without some version of the circle? 

There's no specific time of day, nor specific period in their life when are susceptible to possession, or alternate times when they are not.


Why dont we put you in a cage 24/7 to make sure you dont kill somebody in accident.

#96
the_one_54321

the_one_54321
  • Members
  • 6 112 messages

DKJaigen wrote...
Why dont we put you in a cage 24/7 to make sure you dont kill somebody in accident.

Because I'm not a mage that might suddenly make a deal with a demon and start blasting a town with fireballs.

There is no real-world parallel for mages, as they exist in Ferelden. When something is born an abnormal danger, it's not fair. His/her whole life is not fair. When your mere existence is a threat of danger or death to those around you, it's not fair.

It doesn't make sense to demand fair treatment for an existence that is by default not fair. Someone is going to suffer. All you can do is choose who it's going to be.

#97
Huntress

Huntress
  • Members
  • 2 464 messages
The chantry want peace because they have more to lose than the mages right now, the mages are already in a bad spot, if the mages organize not even tevinter imperial will survive on keeping mages has slaves thats why it is call a revolution.

#98
LegendaryBlade

LegendaryBlade
  • Members
  • 1 482 messages
If you don't put a lot of thought in and follow the lore, there's not a single thing in DA2 that drives you to side with the Templars. Even if you do follow all those things, I doubt anybody would of sided with the Templars if it wasn't for the way the final set of actions are set off (Terrorist Anders). It's presented way to one sided, and there's no reason for it.

The basic idea of the circle is sound and; infact, if you side with the Templars at the end of DA2 you'll quickly notice that the large majority of the circle was, indeed, practicing blood magic. For Dragonage 3 we need two things to really give us the other perspective:

1) A Templar companion whom backs up his beliefs. A kind, identifiable character who the player will want to get along with. Give us a chance to argue with him, but give him dialogue that really logically supports why he does what he does. Let us see the Templars through a Templars eyes.

2) A scenario where we see the worst-case scenario Templars speak of come to pass. The PCs come across a templar hunting what looks like a poor, scared mage. If the players kill the templar and save the girl, they later find out she went on to use blood magic in a trail of blood and death. Or a scenario where a mage you are traveling with is taken over by a rage demon. Or an Apostate attacking and destroying an entire town unprovoked. Let us see WHY the mages must be locked up, don't tell us. This is a visual medium.

#99
Silfren

Silfren
  • Members
  • 4 748 messages

LegendaryBlade wrote...

If you don't put a lot of thought in and follow the lore, there's not a single thing in DA2 that drives you to side with the Templars. Even if you do follow all those things, I doubt anybody would of sided with the Templars if it wasn't for the way the final set of actions are set off (Terrorist Anders). It's presented way to one sided, and there's no reason for it.

The basic idea of the circle is sound and; infact, if you side with the Templars at the end of DA2 you'll quickly notice that the large majority of the circle was, indeed, practicing blood magic. For Dragonage 3 we need two things to really give us the other perspective:

1) A Templar companion whom backs up his beliefs. A kind, identifiable character who the player will want to get along with. Give us a chance to argue with him, but give him dialogue that really logically supports why he does what he does. Let us see the Templars through a Templars eyes.

2) A scenario where we see the worst-case scenario Templars speak of come to pass. The PCs come across a templar hunting what looks like a poor, scared mage. If the players kill the templar and save the girl, they later find out she went on to use blood magic in a trail of blood and death. Or a scenario where a mage you are traveling with is taken over by a rage demon. Or an Apostate attacking and destroying an entire town unprovoked. Let us see WHY the mages must be locked up, don't tell us. This is a visual medium.


Personally I don't understand why people willingly ignore context.  When mages are being hunted down by templars intent on killing them, and the mages have no recourse, because their death has been decreed necessary without any semblance of a trial, why SHOULDN'T mages resort to blood magic to try to save themselves?  Why is a mage, under immediate threat of execution, expected to behave as totally rationally and non-desperately and morally as they would in any other non-life-threatening situation?

Many of the mages we see in DA2 turning to blood magic do so for reasons of survival, not merely because they just up and decided to be evil blood mages to spite the templar order.  Why on earth should a mage resorting to blood magic, and even demonic possession, in an attempt to save their own life, during the very moment when the templars are advancing on them with swords drawn, be considered as morally exactly the same as a mage who chooses blood magic solely to increase their own power and to dominate others?

#100
LegendaryBlade

LegendaryBlade
  • Members
  • 1 482 messages

Silfren wrote...

LegendaryBlade wrote...

If you don't put a lot of thought in and follow the lore, there's not a single thing in DA2 that drives you to side with the Templars. Even if you do follow all those things, I doubt anybody would of sided with the Templars if it wasn't for the way the final set of actions are set off (Terrorist Anders). It's presented way to one sided, and there's no reason for it.

The basic idea of the circle is sound and; infact, if you side with the Templars at the end of DA2 you'll quickly notice that the large majority of the circle was, indeed, practicing blood magic. For Dragonage 3 we need two things to really give us the other perspective:

1) A Templar companion whom backs up his beliefs. A kind, identifiable character who the player will want to get along with. Give us a chance to argue with him, but give him dialogue that really logically supports why he does what he does. Let us see the Templars through a Templars eyes.

2) A scenario where we see the worst-case scenario Templars speak of come to pass. The PCs come across a templar hunting what looks like a poor, scared mage. If the players kill the templar and save the girl, they later find out she went on to use blood magic in a trail of blood and death. Or a scenario where a mage you are traveling with is taken over by a rage demon. Or an Apostate attacking and destroying an entire town unprovoked. Let us see WHY the mages must be locked up, don't tell us. This is a visual medium.


Personally I don't understand why people willingly ignore context.  When mages are being hunted down by templars intent on killing them, and the mages have no recourse, because their death has been decreed necessary without any semblance of a trial, why SHOULDN'T mages resort to blood magic to try to save themselves?  Why is a mage, under immediate threat of execution, expected to behave as totally rationally and non-desperately and morally as they would in any other non-life-threatening situation?

Many of the mages we see in DA2 turning to blood magic do so for reasons of survival, not merely because they just up and decided to be evil blood mages to spite the templar order.  Why on earth should a mage resorting to blood magic, and even demonic possession, in an attempt to save their own life, during the very moment when the templars are advancing on them with swords drawn, be considered as morally exactly the same as a mage who chooses blood magic solely to increase their own power and to dominate others?




I was mostly just naming potential scenarios off the top of my head, but keep in mind I didn't say the mage would use blood magic during the conflict. If the player saved the mage, it would go on to terrorize people with blood magic afterwards, and emphasize that this was WHY the templar was hunting them.

What I am trying to say it, we need to see why exactly it is that the circle is considered necessary. The writers never try to give us perspective from this angle.