269 réponses à ce sujet

[The Elder King]

Lynata wrote...



But I also don't quite follow the criticism regarding the authority of a Knight-Commander now. Say an entire tower circle suddenly turns into abominations and manages to kill the local Grand Cleric - by your reasoning, does this mean that the KC is supposed to send word to the Divine in faraway Orlais before he'd be allowed to act?
Contingency plans are not unrealistic.

If an entire Circle turns into abominations, a Knight- Commander should call the Right of Annulment, regardless who they killed.
Not every Annulment have been called for this situation though.

Modifié par hhh89, 17 avril 2012 - 09:04 .

[Lynata]

ianvillan wrote...
I would of liked to get to know meredith from the start and hear her side of the events about how she wants to help the mages but that they keep getting worse so she has to crack down harder and how she doesn't like it but she sees no other choise in the matter.

you could of also had Orsinio giving his opinions of how its getting worse and how he is loosing mages more and more and how hes worried the templars might be forced to do the right of annulment.

What I would also liked to see is that Hawke captures the templar who was raping the mages in Anders loyalty quest and he takes him to Meredith, we could then see Meredith be horrified at what happened and we see her punish the templar.

Mhm, yes, some more "behind the scenes" context would have been nice. It's not how games such as these are handled, but I think a setting like Dragon Age which puts a big emphasis on moral grey zones would benefit from "interludes" where we do not see the player character and his party at all, but rather various NPCs acting out their part of the story - the parts that we would otherwise not see.

It's how novels and various TV series do it, too. The Song of Ice and Fire (aka Game of Thrones) is famous for being able to pull reader/viewer opinion around depending on which character the narrative focuses on - meaning, not just presenting them as antagonists but simply "people with a conflicting agenda".

hhh89 wrote...
If an entire Circle turns into abominations, a Knight- Commander should call the Right of Annulment, regardless who they killed.
Not every Annulment have been called for this situation though.

Aye - which is why I appreciate David Gaider's clarification that an unjust Annulment would invoke consequences from the Chantry. That wouldn't bring back the lives lost, of course, but it does make it seem likely that Meredith would have been removed from power even if she'd have survived. Especially given who the Divine is right now.

Modifié par Lynata, 17 avril 2012 - 09:08 .

[The Elder King]

Lynata wrote...

hhh89 wrote...
If an entire Circle turns into abominations, a Knight- Commander should call the Right of Annulment, regardless who they killed.
Not every Annulment have been called for this situation though.

Aye - which is why I appreciate David Gaider's clarification that an unjust Annulment would invoke consequences from the Chantry. That wouldn't bring back the lives lost, of course, but it does make it seem likely that Meredith would have been removed from power even if she'd have survived. Especially given who the Divine is right now.

I didn't know that. Thanks for the information. It does make sense that there is a form of control. Otherwise a  bad Knight-Commander could've use it whenever he/she wished.

[ianvillan]

Lynata wrote...

ianvillan wrote...
I would of liked to get to know meredith from the start and hear her side of the events about how she wants to help the mages but that they keep getting worse so she has to crack down harder and how she doesn't like it but she sees no other choise in the matter.

you could of also had Orsinio giving his opinions of how its getting worse and how he is loosing mages more and more and how hes worried the templars might be forced to do the right of annulment.

What I would also liked to see is that Hawke captures the templar who was raping the mages in Anders loyalty quest and he takes him to Meredith, we could then see Meredith be horrified at what happened and we see her punish the templar.

Mhm, yes, some more "behind the scenes" context would have been nice. It's not how games such as these are handled, but I think a setting like Dragon Age which puts a big emphasis on moral grey zones would benefit from "interludes" where we do not see the player character and his party at all, but rather various NPCs acting out their part of the story - the parts that we would otherwise not see.

It's how novels and various TV series do it, too. The Song of Ice and Fire (aka Game of Thrones) is famous for being able to pull reader/viewer opinion around depending on which character the narrative focuses on - meaning, not just presenting them as antagonists but simply "people with a conflicting agenda".

hhh89 wrote...
If an entire Circle turns into abominations, a Knight- Commander should call the Right of Annulment, regardless who they killed.
Not every Annulment have been called for this situation though.

Aye - which is why I appreciate David Gaider's clarification that an unjust Annulment would invoke consequences from the Chantry. That wouldn't bring back the lives lost, of course, but it does make it seem likely that Meredith would have been removed from power even if she'd have survived. Especially given who the Divine is right now.

In Dragon Age Origins we had cutscenes of Logain talking about his plans etc the same could of been done for meredith and it would of improved her character instead of coming across as psycho in the last act.

You could also of had it as a quest where meredith calls you to her office and says how their is a problem with a small group of mages who are starting to spread discord and encoraging other mages to rebel but she doesn't want to act without any proof and its up to Hawke to find it.

[Lynata]

I totally forgot DA:O had this - it's been too long!

Might be a good suggestion for DA3, maybe. Not sure how the majority of gamers feels like, but I like it if the story is explained in more detail, even at the expense of my own character's screentime. A few short cutscenes a la "meanwhile in [...]" could do much to improve the overall narrative by giving various characters more depth and drive the story onward, like it works for novels too.

[ianvillan]

Something I would like to see in DA3 is a group of templars that are protecting a small group of mages not just from ordinary people but from other templars too, that these mages and templars are friends and trust each other and that they dont care about the mage or templar side they were happy as it was before.

[keesio74]

joacho wrote...

My problem was, both in DA2 and Origins, that I could not make myself to support the templars when such conflicts arose without completely overiding my moral conscience's attempts to choose the opposite faction. And even after choosing the templar option, I could not decieve myself into thinking that I made the right choice.

Not me in DA2. I mean I lean in favor of mages but it is not clear cut for me. DA:O was definitely more sympathic to mages and I was a strong mage supporter. But that really changed in DA2. It really opened my eyes to how dangerous mages could be to themselves and others. In DA:O, there were a lot of rational mages you encounter. Wynne. Irving. Morrigan (she easily saw the foolishness of dealing with demons). In DA2, almost every one you meet is on the edge of going haywire and many do. But maybe the biggest thing for me was learning more about the Tevinter Imperium. There you have a nation where mages are really free and in control... and that is one f**ked up nation.

To be honest, if Bethany wasn't a mage I may have been more tempted to side Templar.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

You're conflating the issue of Gaider addressing that Circle mages have certain privledges inside the Circle Tower with the discussion of what would happen to a mob that killed a mage, which is know is a possibility from Wynne's discussion about mages outside the Circle Tower, as well as Mother Hannah's words to an Amell Warden.[/quote]

I'd just like to know what could possibly have brought you to to the conclusion that the death of a mage would be ignored, given that they qualify both as citizens as well as Chantry personnel. [/quote]

For the same reason everyone ignored how women out of the Denerim Alienage were abducted in broad daylight. Except Andrastian society hates mages and views magic with disdain, to the point where they refer to magic as a "curse." We have Dragon Age II, where mages get tortured, raped, abused, made tranquil illegally, and killed. In a society where mages are dehumanized, I have trouble accepting the idea that mages would be treated fairly.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

Even if we'd take the cold-hearted road and judge them by "material value" and the sheer amount of wealth invested into their training, a mage is worth far more than some bum who gets killed in a dark alley.

I have seen templars defending Circle mages from the common people.
I have not seen the authorities officially ignoring manslaughter (etc) on anyone.

Officially, even the city elves are protected by law. Are you seriously trying to tell me that a Circle mage is worth less than an elven immigrant? [/quote]

Considering that the Denerim elves can be abducted in broad daylight, I don’t see why you think mages would be treated any better when the dominant religion allows templars to have “dominion over them by divine right” as we learn from Cullen. Mages are viewed with disdain in Andrastian society, they are seen as “cursed.” Wynne points out how people kill mages for things they are not responsible for. Mother Hannah has to reassure a human mage that he won’t be killed simply for aiding the village of Redcliffe. It’s a hostile society to mages and magic.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

You responded to specific passages by quoting them and made responses that had nothing to do with the discussion of those specific passages.[/quote]

Yes. So? When I spot something that I regard as an incorrect claim, I do not have to engage in the discussion where it was made. Facts don't change depending on context. [/quote]

You quoted a discussion, and then discussed something that had nothing to do with what was quoted. That is the fact of your response to me in this thread. You apparently couldn’t be bothered to actually read the discussion because you seemed more interested in starting an argument with me.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Jowan doesn't know what the Harrowing is about. First Enchanter Irving tells the mage protagonist not to discuss what the Harrowing is about to his (or her) fellow mages. Knight-Commander Greagoir stops Irving from even discussing very vague suggestions about what to be warry about in the Fade.[/quote]

They don't know the details - which is, of course, understandable if we keep in mind that the very purpose of the Harrowing is the "simulation" of an unexpected encounter with a demon in the Fade - the kind that mages are at risk from. Telling the apprentices in detail what nature of demon the enchanters are sensing and giving him hints on what kind of tactic said demon may employ would render the entire test useless. Demons usually do not announce themselves, and when a mage faces on in the Fade he rarely has outside help to guide him through. This is what the Harrowing attempts to recreate - the full risk in all its potential. Only then will the Circle know if the apprentice is capable of resisting.

"The ultimate test of a Circle mage is the secret and sacred rite of the Harrowing. It is the event every Circle apprentice studies, trains, and prepares for. The Harrowing looms large for apprentices in part because the enchanters of the apprentice's circle decide, on their own and in secret, when and if the apprentice is ready for the rite. When they do so the apprentice is taken, without warning or preparation, to face the Harrowing. It can come at any time, and so one must always be ready. [...]"
-- DARPG Set 2

tl;dr: The rite is secret, but what happens is something the mages have been preparing for years. [/quote]

Jowan is surprised to discover that the mage protagonist was put up against a demon, if the protagonist tells him about his Harrowing, but he responds that it makes sense. He is surprised to discover this.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Jowan can use his magical abilities to protect refugees as Master Levyn. He uses his freedom to keep people safe from the darkspawn.[/quote]

Yet he began dabbling in blood magic solely out of a lust for power as he freely admits to the player mage.
I think it's safe to say that not every human being who ever did somethign wrong later came to see the error of their ways. [/quote]

Jowan thought it would make him a better mage, and he was envious of the mage protagonist. That doesn’t change the fact that he uses his freedom protecting people from the darkspawn as Master Levyn. And it’s safe to say that we see templars abusing their authority throughout the narrative – torturing a child of the Dalish, making mages tranquil illegally, raping mages, killing people. There are mages and templars capable of committing monstrous acts.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Your link is to a post made by IanPolaris addressing why he thought the Right of Annulment was illegal, not realizing how asinine (and unrealistic) the Chantry system actually was in giving a subservient branch of their organization that much authority.[/quote]

The link leads to an entire thread of posts where David Gaider has addressed the dangers posed by mages, and the naivety of posters disregarding them or their effect on the Thedan population.

But I also don't quite follow the criticism regarding the authority of a Knight-Commander now. Say an entire tower circle suddenly turns into abominations and manages to kill the local Grand Cleric - by your reasoning, does this mean that the KC is supposed to send word to the Divine in faraway Orlais before he'd be allowed to act?
Contingency plans are not unrealistic. [/quote]

There is no naivety in having a different point of view than you, and people have addressed the dangers of magic in many threads prior to that one. People disagree with the Chantry controlled Circles, and still understand that magic can be dangerous, no matter how much you try to malign them simply because they hold a different point of view than you do. They simply view the methods employed by the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars as a problem, rather than a solution.

Also, the thread was about the Right of Annulment. David Gaider addressed the Right of Annulment, and his continuing feud with IanPolaris, who has disagreed with him on many issues. Many people have disagreed with David Gaider in the past.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

If mages are fighting to maintain their autonomy from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars, I think their focus would be on maintaining their freedom.[/quote]Of course this includes occupying or raiding the countryside, given that they need to eat or maybe want a couple new clothes. Autonomy comes with the requirement of economy, and since mages don't have one by themselves they'd probably be forced to turn into bandits like the early Fereldan resistance fighters. Well, somewhat more dangerous. [/quote]

The Avvar and the Chasind are not bandits, and neither are the Dalish. Those groups live outside of Andrastian society as well, and have autonomy from the Chantry and the templars.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]hhh89 wrote...

The conflict isn't one sided in the slightest. I think that both the Circle and the Templar Order in Kirkwall were the worse side of both mages and templars. [/quote]/agree

I believe David Gaider talked a bit about this, too, and it's a criticism raised by a lot of people. I do think it was pulled off better in DA:O - though neither title has yet confronted us with a situation where the Annulment could have been argued to be the better solution. Then again, if BioWare ever did this, people would probably complain about being given no chance for a positive outcome, even if that would miss the point. [/quote]

I don’t need to be railroaded, and I don’t need things to be “dark” for the sake of being “dark.” We had enough of that already with Hawke’s story. There were plenty of story plots that ended up with things going badly in Dragon Age II, to the point where Hawke seemed passive and ineffectual as a consequence. I don’t think we need more “dark” in the narrative simply for the sake of being dark, as we already have the royal boons from Origins being maligned and turning out badly simply for the sake of being “dark.” I detest this new mode of having everything turn out badly (which is repeated in Legacy and Mark of the Assassin), especially when it’s railroads players (regardless of how unnatural it feels).

The schism between the mages and templars in Kirkwall was mishandled by portraying both mages and templars as little more than caricatures – with mage antagonists being insane and stupid, and templar antagonists being sadists and rapists. It made the entire schism between the two groups ridiculous when they were little more than cartoons.

[LobselVith8]

***SPOILERS***

BrotherWarth wrote...

That's still just 2 Templars as opposed to the dozens of mages. And I don't see how that one Templar was worse than the mage who kills Hawke's mom and who knows how many more women(and was aided by the Senior Enchanter).

I think there are a plethora of bad templars in the narrative. Kerras implies he will rape a female Hawke if she opposes his attempts to capture the Starkhaven mages, templars tortured a da'len (child) hunter of the Dalish for information, Alrik was making mages tranquil (and apparently raping them, based on his dialogue with the child mage Ella and the female tranquil mage in the Gallows) with none of the templars present having any issue with what he said, there's the death squad of templars killing people in Act III (we see them about to murder a woman who fed her tortured and starved mage cousn), we learn Alain was repeatedly raped by templars...

...I would also attest to the idea that Meredith wanting to murder hundreds of men, women, and children to appease a hypothetical mob (as she continually argues that the Right of Annulment is solely about the fact "the people will demand blood") is much worse than anything Quentin has done. Quentin killed a handful of women, Meredith wants to execute an entire population of people who are innocent of Anders' actions.

That said, I would have preferred to see mages and templars written as three-dimensional characters, because it seemed like virtually all the mage antagonists were insane and stupid while templar antagonists were sadists and rapists. I think focusing on the arguments in favor of each side, and keeping Meredith and Orsino as sane, but flawed, leaders who wouldn't turn into monsters simply for opposing them, would have been much better (like Tullius and Ulfric in Skyrim) than what was delivered.

[the_one_54321]

LobselVith, do you at least acknowledge that a mage is a danger to others simply by existing?

[HiroVoid]

the_one_54321 wrote...

LobselVith, do you at least acknowledge that a mage is a danger to others simply by existing?

err.....that applies to everyone including having to compete with.

[The Elder King]

BrotherWarth wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

I wish that DA2 hadn't made the mage-templar conflict so one-sided. There are so many evil, amoral and vile mages in DA2 and basically just Meredith to represent the nuts on the other side. Any logical person would agree that the mages need to be kept in the Circle.

There were at least one Templar in DA2 on the negative side (the one in Ander's quest). He was far worse than Meredith (who was in Act 3 heavily influenced by her sword), and in my opinion was far worse than the majority of blood mages we encountered in DA2.
The conflict isn't one sided in the slightest. I think that both the Circle and the Templar Order in Kirkwall were the worse side of both mages and templars.
Even if the templars were the "good guys",Meredith declared the Righ of Annulment (condamning to death every mages, even children) for the action of one apostate, who the Templars (for the rules they follow) should've arrested years ago. It was the templar's fault that Anders was free and blew up the Chantry, not the mages. It was for the templar's actions over mages (which in Kirkwall was really bad) that Anders decided to blew up the Chantry and trigger a war.

That's still just 2 Templars as opposed to the dozens of mages. And I don't see how that one Templar was worse than the mage who kills Hawke's mom and who knows how many more women(and was aided by the Senior Enchanter).

I said worse than the majority of blood mage, not everyone. I'd say that Quentin was the worst blood mage, and he was worst than Otto (the Templars we're referring to). Though not a lot worse. Otto wanted to make every mage Tranquil, and his reason to do this was that in that way it would've been easier to rape them.
Quentin's action were worse, indeed, but he was insane.
About the comparison between two templars and dozens of mages, do you think that Meredith executed every actions by herself, or that she gave orders to her templars?
The majority of the Order in Kirkwall supported Meredith until the last part of the game. They were loyal to them. The templars in Kirkwall have ruled the Circle with fear for decades. In Act 3 the mages' treatment became much worse. Meredith was the one who gave the orders, but her templars executed them.

[the_one_54321]

HiroVoid wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
LobselVith, do you at least acknowledge that a mage is a danger to others simply by existing?

err.....that applies to everyone including having to compete with.

Mages have magic and can be possessed by demons. This is not true of non-mages.

This is their state of being simply by existing. Is this not something we can agree on?

[Pasquale1234]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Mages have magic and can be possessed by demons. This is not true of non-mages.

.... except in Kirkwall, with Tarohne's help, Templars could be possessed.

The real villain in Kirkwall is the thin veil, the result of many years of abusive slavery and a strong dose of blood magic.  I've wondered what might happen if the Circle set up a major healing center in the gallows - whether it would change the energies of the place over time, maybe enough to repair the veil.

[the_one_54321]

Pasquale1234 wrote...
.... except in Kirkwall, with Tarohne's help, Templars could be possessed.

hhh89 wrote...
Non-mages can be possessed by demons. Uldred wanted to put a demon on the Warden, regardless he's a mage or not.
Probably they can't be possessed without a blood mage/abomination that forces the demon on the person, but they aren't immune to demone possession.

But they aren't born individually capable of it.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 18 avril 2012 - 04:42 .

[The Elder King]

the_one_54321 wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
LobselVith, do you at least acknowledge that a mage is a danger to others simply by existing?

err.....that applies to everyone including having to compete with.

Mages have magic and can be possessed by demons. This is not true of non-mages.

This is their state of being simply by existing. Is this not something we can agree on?

Non-mages can be possessed by demons. Uldred wanted to put a demon on the Warden, regardless he's a mage or not.
Probably they can't be possessed without a blood mage/abomination that forces the demon on the person, but they aren't immune to demone possession.

[HiroVoid]

Both can be possesed, but a mage being possessed is generally much more powerful than a non-mage possession. In that way, most demons are going to want to possess mages over non-mages which is why there suseptibility is much higher.

[LobselVith8]

We see trees and animals become possessed by spirits in Origins, and mages were not responsible for those possessions. The Veil was simply thin. The Rhyming Oak Tree is a possessed tree, as well.

[The Elder King]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...
.... except in Kirkwall, with Tarohne's help, Templars could be possessed.

hhh89 wrote...
Non-mages can be possessed by demons. Uldred wanted to put a demon on the Warden, regardless he's a mage or not.
Probably they can't be possessed without a blood mage/abomination that forces the demon on the person, but they aren't immune to demone possession.

But they aren't born individually capable of it.

Yes, I know. I said in my post that without someone forcing a demon on them (or if they are present in a place where  the Veil is opem), non-mage can't be possessed. I didn't know if with your post you meant that they can't be possessed, or if they aren't born individually capable of it.

[the_one_54321]

LobselVith8 wrote...
We see trees and animals become possessed by spirits in Origins, and mages were not responsible for those possessions. The Veil was simply thin. The Rhyming Oak Tree is a possessed tree, as well.

Inanimate objects possessed by spirits are not abominations. Mages possessed by demons are abominations. That's where you get into the "firestorm in the middle of town" territory.

Sorry, let me replace "possessed by demons" with "become powerful abominations." That's more technically accurate.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 18 avril 2012 - 07:47 .

[LobselVith8]

the_one_54321 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
We see trees and animals become possessed by spirits in Origins, and mages were not responsible for those possessions. The Veil was simply thin. The Rhyming Oak Tree is a possessed tree, as well.

Inanimate objects possessed by spirits are not abominations. Mages possessed by demons are abominations. That's where you get into the "firestorm in the middle of town" territory.

Sorry, let me replace "possessed by demons" with "become powerful abominations." That's more technically accurate.

I never claimed they were abominations. Only examples of possessions by spirits.

[the_one_54321]

LobselVith8 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
We see trees and animals become possessed by spirits in Origins, and mages were not responsible for those possessions. The Veil was simply thin. The Rhyming Oak Tree is a possessed tree, as well.

Inanimate objects possessed by spirits are not abominations. Mages possessed by demons are abominations. That's where you get into the "firestorm in the middle of town" territory.

Sorry, let me replace "possessed by demons" with "become powerful abominations." That's more technically accurate.

I never claimed they were abominations. Only examples of possessions by spirits.

The focus is on the mages capacity for random destruction and how it definitively seperates them from non-mages.

[LobselVith8]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The focus is on the mages capacity for random destruction and how it definitively seperates them from non-mages.

Which is where we disagree. You seem to think the Chantry controlled Circles are the solution to the issue of mages and their magical abilities, and I think it's part of the problem.

[the_one_54321]

No, all I'm suggesting is that mages are a unique and significant danger by birth.

Solution consideration comes after establishment of the nature of the problem.