63 réponses à ce sujet

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Kirkwall was awful, but so was the story.

[LobselVith8]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Because some don't meta-game their reasons or understands the dangers of mages.

Considering the choice is to murder hundreds of people for an act they are completely innocent of committing (which is the only explanation the person who makes the choice provides to you), or doing your best to protect people from getting killed because they are innocent of a particular act that transpired, it has nothing to do with meta-gaming.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 14 juillet 2012 - 01:37 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Because some don't meta-game their reasons or understands the dangers of mages.

Considering the choice is to murder hundreds of people for an act they are completely innocent of committing (which is the only explanation the person who makes the choice provides to you), or doing your best to protect people from getting killed because they are innocent of a particular act that transpired, it has nothing to do with meta-gaming.

Exactly. It's more common sense than anything else.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 13 juillet 2012 - 09:24 .

[LobselVith8]

hero 2 wrote...

Leaving aside the fact that Meredith's mind was addled by the idol, what Meredith SHOULD have been and what she WAS are exactly the point.

Well, Meredith should have been an interesting character. Instead, she was a caricature.

hero 2 wrote...

People do strange things, when people with enormous power do strange things, chaos can ensue and many people can suffer. Orsino tries to restrain himself (ultimately unsuccessfully) in that despite all of his magic, he comprehends that the place of the circle in society is to keep magic safely contained.

Orsino barely has any character, either, and he becomes as much of a one-dimensional lunatic as Meredith in the end. The tragedy of the conclusion is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the dichotomy between mages and templars; the final choice has zero to do with whether you are pro-templar or pro-mage.

hero 2 wrote...

I think that the choices are too tough for people too used to the ordinary simple good/evil dichotomy. In this respect, I think DA2 is one of the most lifelike games I've seen.

What's too tough about a plethora of one-dimensional lunatics who are littered throughout the narrative, and a passive protagonist who continually does nothing with his power?

[Maclimes]

Considering that the First Enchanter was some sort of crazy blood mage/flesh golem/Harvester thing (I... I don't even know what that was or why), it's not unreasonable to think his influence could have been far reaching amongst the Circle. Perhaps annulment wasn't such a bad idea, in retrospect.

[LobselVith8]

So let's condemn hundreds of men, women, and children because of one man?

[Chiramu]

LobselVith8 wrote...

So let's condemn hundreds of men, women, and children because of one man?

You could think like the Joker? Would be nice to play a mad villain .

[snackrat]

In DAO I totally would've sided with mages.
For DAII I couldn't understand how someone who could be a mage, who's father and sister was a mage, and I my first playthrough I totally did.

...but... pretty much EVERY. SINGLE. MAGE. turns out to be a blood mage, an abomination, or both. There is probably only one or two exceptions, many just on a "could be, couldn't be, who knows" basis.
Of your two mage squadmates, one is a blood mage, one is an abomination. And they're supposed to represent the BEST of mages. *facepalm* And the one NPC mage who talks most vehemently against blood magic turns out to NOT ONLY TOTALLY KNOW THIS BIG BLOOD RITUAL, but helped someone in making it! WTH!

I don't support Meredith, who is crazy without a doubt. But it reached the point that I DID support the templars and their role in trying to keep peace between magic and mundane, who are also evidently struggling to control a group of crazy blood-drinking demon worshippers.

And a valid point is raised in-game: though Janders is not part of the Circle, because a mage did the SPOILER THING, mages as a whole will be held responsible. There will be chaos as the city demands annulment. Do I think the Circle should be annulled? No. Do I think annulment is the better option to the riots that would occur regardless? It is perhaps the lesser of two evils. Made stronger in the fact that for some mysterious reason EVERYONE IS A BLOOD MAGE.

[sUiCiDeKiNgS13]

Have 2 playthroughs.

Mage Hawke - Sided with Mages. Anders lived

Rogue Hawke - Sided with Templars, but wasn't ruthless. Killed Anders

[LobselVith8]

Karsciyin wrote...

In DAO I totally would've sided with mages.
For DAII I couldn't understand how someone who could be a mage, who's father and sister was a mage, and I my first playthrough I totally did.

...but... pretty much EVERY. SINGLE. MAGE. turns out to be a blood mage, an abomination, or both. There is probably only one or two exceptions, many just on a "could be, couldn't be, who knows" basis.

The problem is, they are all ridiculous. They are stupid and insane. They don't even make sense in terms of the plot. When it comes to Decimus, he thinks Hawke and his moiety crew are templars; does Merrill even look like a templar to you? She is a Dalish elf, who have a very bad history with the templars. For Grace, she wants revenge, even if Hawke aided her. Does this even remotely make sense? For Tahrone, she looks like a drug addict and acts like a raving lunatic. Does it make sense for anyone to follow her? It's a plethora of one-dimensional caricatures.

Karsciyin wrote...

Of your two mage squadmates, one is a blood mage, one is an abomination. And they're supposed to represent the BEST of mages. *facepalm* And the one NPC mage who talks most vehemently against blood magic turns out to NOT ONLY TOTALLY KNOW THIS BIG BLOOD RITUAL, but helped someone in making it! WTH!

The fact that it makes no sense for those two characters to even know each other, especially since one is implied to be from the Circle of Starkhaven (based on the note in the mansion you enter during the relevent quest) - much less why a ridiculously asinine ritual would even be remembered years later, since it can clearly only be performed once - doesn't really move me. Yeah, I know the developers admitted it was done to give us another boss battle, and because they wanted to avoid the mage ending being the "good ending," but it still doesn't make sense.

As for Merrill, she's a proactive mage who never abuses her blood magic abilities, and is trying to end the plight of the People. Blood magic isn't evil - and even Grey Warden mages have used blood magic to defeat the darkspawn. As for Merrill, I respected her efforts to help her people, while I wondered why the writers made Hawke so inhumanly passive in contrast.

Karsciyin wrote...

I don't support Meredith, who is crazy without a doubt. But it reached the point that I DID support the templars and their role in trying to keep peace between magic and mundane, who are also evidently struggling to control a group of crazy blood-drinking demon worshippers.

Meredith never makes any such claim when she asks Hawke to make a choice, and we honestly know nothing about the hundreds of men, women, and children in the Gallows to judge whether they are good or bad people. The fact is, this isn't addressed; Meredith repeatedly says she wants to annul the Circle because she wants to appease the people who will demand blood.

Karsciyin wrote...

And a valid point is raised in-game: though Janders is not part of the Circle, because a mage did the SPOILER THING, mages as a whole will be held responsible. There will be chaos as the city demands annulment. Do I think the Circle should be annulled? No. Do I think annulment is the better option to the riots that would occur regardless? It is perhaps the lesser of two evils. Made stronger in the fact that for some mysterious reason EVERYONE IS A BLOOD MAGE.

There will be chaos because templars will be trying to kill mages, who will try to defend themselves. That is the reason why chaos will ensue.

The problem is, the final choice has nothing to do with whether you believe in the templars or the mages. Meredith wants to kill hundreds of people for an act they are completely innocent of; she makes it clear she wants them dead because a mob will demand blood. How does that have anything to do with the schism between pro-templar or pro-mage ideologies? Killing people to appease a hypothetical mob has nothing to do with supporting the Chantry controlled Circles.

[Sylvanpyxie]

Topic:
Why would anyone side against mages?

Let's be fair here..

They all started to go a little loopy loo.

To be more serious: I was an avid Mage Supporter in Origins. A few bad apples doesn't ruin the tree, Mages were being wrongfully imprisoned for crimes that *might* commit. It was cruel and unnecessary. A much more humane option would simply be to hunt down the bad apples and crush them like ants, allowing innocent Mages to roam free like the birds.

Then Dragon Age II happened.

I can accept some Mages being forced into a situation where Blood Magic is a necessity. When your life is on the line you will do anything to survive, and one bout of Blood Magic won't necessarily turn you into the Spawn of Hades himself.

However, the sheer capacity of stupidity that surrounded Kirkwall, and it's Mages, was mind-blowing.

Yes, the Templars might have been backing them into a corner.
Yes, a certain Someone of the Templar Order might be a little crazy.

However, when you can't turn a corner without some Blood Mage screaming bloody murder in your face, your beliefs are going to be radically altered. By the end of Dragon Age II i was, quite frankly, sick of Mages constantly turning to Blood Magic and Demons.

I saved every Mage that i could in my first play-through, and they all decided to turn to Blood Magic anyway. Regardless of how much i supported the Mages, and their cause, they all decided to shaft me in the end and converse and consort with Demons.

There's a single Mage that i can think of, off the top of my head, that didn't end up going absolutely nuts on me, and that was Feynriel, and he still came bloody close to it.

When i was faced with the choice of Templar or Mage, Feynriel was the only Mage i stopped to consider when i made my choice. He was the only character in the entire game that had given me pause to think about siding with the Mages and attempting to save them...


..... Then i remembered that Feynriel went to Tevinter so i supported the Templars. I might have supported Mage freedom in Origins, and i might still support it in future games, but the Kirkwall Mages? I'm not letting those crazies out.

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 14 juillet 2012 - 06:03 .

[snackrat]

The point of mage restriction isn't really about control. It's about fear, and the Circle actually helps them. The mundane fear the magic. For the first point, they don't really understand it, blaming every problem that occurs on any magical users in their midst. For the second very real point, mages are vulnerable to demons. I don't just mean the odd one that runs to one (though that is a very real concern) but they also the fact that they may be attacked or tricked in the Fade. Without the training the Circle provides on how to recognise these attempts and repel them, all mages, regardless of their intentions, are potentially devastating. the reason the Hawke's are alright is because of Malcolm - he was taught by the Circle, and could pass that knowledge on. But what about mages who's parents did not go to the Circle? Those parents may have been born in the wild, or perhaps worse: they're not mages at all, and know nothing of magic or how it should be handled. Even Merrill admits that Dalish keepers will be occasionally possessed by demons, at which point the hunters must track and kill them, and this is with the education the Dalish provide on them.

The Circle, as it is, is a flawed system. But I believe that system should be FIXED, not debunked. What Anders wants is anarchy.
The Circle should be more like an enforced boarding school than the prison it currently is. They should allow visitors. Excepting those with very poor behaviour or those that pose a threat to others outside, they should be able to leave, at least for short periods (or come on, at least go outside). Once they have reached a certain age, an age where hopefully the risk-related section of their brain has finished developing (perhaps around 25, 30), and having proven they are well capable of resisting demons, they can be given more freedoms, required only to 'check in' to Chantries to let them know where they are or where they're going (so if something DOES go wrong, less devastation before the templars can stop it), leaving them free to search the world for studies. (Though I imagine the Chantry would not allow them permission to enter any lands under the Black Divine.)

That way, they get the education they need to repel demons, as well as information on what demons and abominations are and how to recognise them. They also are taught on how to use magic effectively, and channel it cleanly, rather than just letting it lose whenever they call upon it (in the Circle in DAO's mage origin, you can walk around and observe these classes). Any mages that are weak-willed or ruthlessly ambitious will not be able to leave the tower and will be under constant watch. Tranquillity is provided as an option but not enforced.

There's still the issue of mundane fear: I imagine a mage outside of the Circle would still never know true freedom, because anyone who knew would likely beat them, burn their houses, blame them for poor crops or dead stock and the like, and attempt to kill them should they not keep moving. I think many may prefer to stay in their Circles anyway. It was originally intended to be - it was ASKED to be, CREATED to be - a means of protecting mages so they could study in peace away from the mundanes that fear them.

[LobselVith8]

Considering mages are feared in Andrastian societies, and are viewed differently among the Avvar, the Chasind, the Dalish, and the Rivanni, maybe it has something to do with the Chantry vilifying mages and preaching that they are "cursed."

As for the Chantry controlled Circles, templars have "domination over mages by divine right." It's hardly an ideal place for mages when they have no basic rights. The mage protagonist can address that the Circle is a 'prison' and an 'oppressive place' in Origins. The Hero of Ferelden can ask for his people to be emancipated from the Chantry and the templars, and the new ruler can agree that mages have earned the right to govern themselves.

And if many mages liked the Chantry controlled Circles, there wouldn't be a rebellion going on.

[PainS]

They don't really give you enough incentives to play the tyrant and side with the templars. Sure you're the ruler of Kirkwall, but does it matter? Every mage, in Thedas, hates you. PLUS you can't actually play as a ruler because there's no post-campaign gameplay. You're basically on house arrest after you beat the game.