63 réponses à ce sujet

[Ophir147]

Xilizhra wrote...

Hardly. It's clear that many templars have different takes on their lives of abusive internment and periodic genocide. However, the ones who break out of that to become genuinely decent people... well, judging from DA2's Thrask and Keran, they don't stay templars for long. Not loyal ones, at any rate.

So you would actually be disappointed if DA (TNBT) introduced a Templar who was sympathetic and didn't have radical views on the subjugation of mages, but also genuinely believed in the original cause of the templars (to protect the people from mages, mages from people, and mages from themselves regardless of Chantry rhetoric)?

And need I mention that both Thrask and Keran were quite radical themselves, being accomplice to an abomination in a kidnapping in order coerce Hawke. Or do you view this as the only reason they are considered to be morally redeemable? 

[Xilizhra]

So you would actually be disappointed if DA (TNBT) introduced a Templar who was sympathetic and didn't have radical views on the subjugation of mages, but also genuinely believed in the original cause of the templars (to protect the people from mages, mages from people, and mages from themselves regardless of Chantry rhetoric)?

I can consider many people sympathetic. Cullen fits your standard perfectly, and I find him interesting and sympathetic. I also deeply, deeply dislike him, consider his popularity entirely unearned, and would be happy to dump his charred corpse into the ocean at the end of DA2. Because the "original cause" of the templars is a complete myth; they were actually worse in their original incarnation before the Chantry reined them in, and the templars seem to be quite happy to go back to the Inquisition days now.
So to answer your question... I'm not against it, but that doesn't make them less of a villain. Because nonradical (in your words) views on the subjugation of mages are inherently evil, assuming it involves keeping the status quo of the current Order.

And need I mention that both Thrask and Keran were quite radical themselves, being accomplice to an abomination in a kidnapping in order coerce Hawke. Or do you view this as the only reason they are considered to be morally redeemable?

They tried to change the system, the only morally acceptable course. Then again, I consider everyone redeemable. Their methods were flawed, but they admitted this.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 20 juillet 2012 - 06:17 .

[Ophir147]

Xilizhra wrote...

I can consider many people sympathetic. Cullen fits your standard perfectly, and I find him interesting and sympathetic. I also deeply, deeply dislike him, consider his popularity entirely unearned, and would be happy to dump his charred corpse into the ocean at the end of DA2.

Meh, I don't really like him either, and I tend to take his benevolence with a grain of salt due to the fact the he became either a Meredith-style Knight Commander tyrant in one ending of DA:O and a mentally unhinged murderer in the other.

Because the "original cause" of the templars is a complete myth; they were actually worse in their original incarnation before the Chantry reined them in, and the templars seem to be quite happy to go back to the Inquisition days now.

I'm not so good at arguing semantics (I'm obviously not very good at arguing anything, as you can see) and what it actually means to be a Templar. and it does seem easy to get a bit caught up in the fact that they may have been established out of fear of the Mages, but the Circles are obviously one of the most important (and interesting) institutions in Thedas. The necessity of what they do is, in my opinion, undeniable. Are all of them villains because they are almost as easily corruptible as Mages?

So to answer your question... I'm not against it, but that doesn't make them less of a villain. Because nonradical (in your words) views on the subjugation of mages are inherently evil, assuming it involves keeping the status quo of the current Order.

Here is where we obviously part ways, in terms of arguing morals. I have yet to see anything that would indicate a society in which mages are left to become an all-you-can-possess buffet for bloodthirsty demons is a less evil alternative to one where mages are carefully watched so that they aren't a threat to anyone.

[Xilizhra]

I'm not so good at arguing semantics (I'm obviously not very good at arguing anything, as you can see) and what it actually means to be a Templar. and it does seem easy to get a bit caught up in the fact that they may have been established out of fear of the Mages, but the Circles are obviously one of the most important (and interesting) institutions in Thedas. The necessity of what they do is, in my opinion, undeniable. Are all of them villains because they are almost as easily corruptible as Mages?

The necessity of a Circle-like system isn't important to this argument; the problem is the current Templar Order ruling it and the Chantry maintaining it. Such a system is inherently corrupt and likely beyond redemption, so yes, loyalist templars are punch clock villains at the very least.

Here is where we obviously part ways, in terms of arguing morals. I have yet to see anything that would indicate a society in which mages are left to become an all-you-can-possess buffet for bloodthirsty demons is a less evil alternative to one where mages are carefully watched so that they aren't a threat to anyone.

You say that as though religiously bigoted zealots are the only way to prevent such a thing from happening.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 20 juillet 2012 - 06:45 .

[Ophir147]

Xilizhra wrote...

Here is where we obviously part ways, in terms of arguing morals. I have yet to see anything that would indicate a society in which mages are left to become an all-you-can-possess buffet for bloodthirsty demons is a less evil alternative to one where mages are carefully watched so that they aren't a threat to anyone.

You say that as though religiously bigoted zealots are the only way to prevent such a thing from happening.

I said no such thing, but I can see how that was inferred. Perhaps a little context would be valuable to your understanding.

I'm not pro-Templar, but neither am I pro-Mage. I see myself as pro-Order, and my personal beliefs dictate that the loss of innocent and well-meaning human life in any form is a tragedy.

I don't agree with everything that the Templars believe, and I particularly hate that some of them believe that the only way to control Mages is through either Tranquilization or genocide. However the best way that the Mage-Templar conflict could end is not through Mage liberation, but through Chantry and Templar reform, particularly if templars could evolve into a sort of reliable, secular, and self-policing order. But we both know that isn't going to happen, due to chokehold that Andrastianism has on Thedas.

However, when faced with a choice between a: the chance to re-establish order and create a more welcoming situation to diplomatic discourse and b: sitting on my thumbs while mages fall victim to demons and a better future moves further and further away from my grasp, I'd much rather have the "religiously bigoted zealots" solve, or at least attempt to solve the problem then just give up and go home. It's making the best of a FUBAR situation.

[Xilizhra]

I don't agree with everything that the Templars believe, and I particularly hate that some of them believe that the only way to control Mages is through either Tranquilization or genocide. However the best way that the Mage-Templar conflict could end is not through Mage liberation, but through Chantry and Templar reform, particularly if templars could evolve into a sort of reliable, secular, and self-policing order. But we both know that isn't going to happen, due to chokehold that Andrastianism has on Thedas.

And that's why evolution cannot happen, only extinction. It's entirely possible that some new Circle will be necessary, but whatever soldiers arise to defend it will be a new order, and not the old templars; they will be wiped from the face of the earth. If some wish to find redemption, fine, they can live, but all vestiges of the Order must be obliterated.

However, when faced with a choice between a: the chance to re-establish order and create a more welcoming situation to diplomatic discourse and b: sitting on my thumbs while mages fall victim to demons and a better future moves further and further away from my grasp, I'd much rather have the "religiously bigoted zealots" solve, or at least attempt to solve the problem then just give up and go home. It's making the best of a FUBAR situation.

What you accept is far from the best; it's barely any step up from the worst. Look at what the "order" we have now has given us: the graduation ceremony for mages has a high risk of death, abuses are common and overlooked, things seem to tighten further with every day, the use of the Rite of Tranquility as supposed mercy... such order is a thin facade and of no use. There will be a better future, and the Chantry will not be a part.

[ianvillan]

I would like to see a templar who is willing to lay down his life to protect a mage from some threat.

Maybe a templar or two who would fight an towns guard because the mages are in their care and that they swore an oath to protect them.

[Maclimes]

ianvillan wrote...

I would like to see a templar who is willing to lay down his life to protect a mage from some threat.

Maybe a templar or two who would fight an towns guard because the mages are in their care and that they swore an oath to protect them.

You need to read Asunder.

[ianvillan]

Maclimes wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

I would like to see a templar who is willing to lay down his life to protect a mage from some threat.

Maybe a templar or two who would fight an towns guard because the mages are in their care and that they swore an oath to protect them.

You need to read Asunder.

I heard it was in Asunder and will get around to buying it one day, but i think it should be in the game which is what alot of people only know about.

[Ophir147]

Xilizhra wrote...

And that's why evolution cannot happen, only extinction. It's entirely possible that some new Circle will be necessary, but whatever soldiers arise to defend it will be a new order, and not the old templars; they will be wiped from the face of the earth. If some wish to find redemption, fine, they can live, but all vestiges of the Order must be obliterated.

What you accept is far from the best; it's barely any step up from the worst. Look at what the "order" we have now has given us: the graduation ceremony for mages has a high risk of death, abuses are common and overlooked, things seem to tighten further with every day, the use of the Rite of Tranquility as supposed mercy... such order is a thin facade and of no use. There will be a better future, and the Chantry will not be a part.

The Harrowing was never intended to be a "graduation ceremony," from what remember it is intended a way of testing whether a mage is capable of resisting the allure of demons. If they did not pass such a rite, then they would just be demon food anyway, it is undoubtedly better to reduce the amount of damage that such a mage could do (to himself and others if possessed) by offering him a quick death.

In respect to the Rite of Tranquility be considered an act of mercy, that's not really an objective point of argument, as it depends on whether you would like to either risk having your entire being stolen from you by psychopathic evil, being forced to watch as it kills people with the body that was once yours, or whether you would rather live a life devoid of emotion, unable to dream and cut off from a wondrous power that was your birthright. Both sides seem pretty crappy, but it seems to me selfish to pick option A over option B.

At any rate, I have to start cooking tacos, so I'll be dropping out from the conversation for a little while. So let me end with saying that you are a very, very scary person Xilizhra, and your views seem even more refreshingly terrifying.

[Xilizhra]

The Harrowing was never intended to be a "graduation ceremony," from what remember it is intended a way of testing whether a mage is capable of resisting the allure of demons. If they did not pass such a rite, then they would just be demon food anyway, it is undoubtedly better to reduce the amount of damage that such a mage could do (to himself and others if possessed) by offering him a quick death.

Even better if they came up with a way for them to go into the Fade with accompaniment, and have a senior mage around to save them if they were imperiled by the demon; if they required saving, they could wait and then try again later.

In respect to the Rite of Tranquility be considered an act of mercy, that's not really an objective point of argument, as it depends on whether you would like to either risk having your entire being stolen from you by psychopathic evil, being forced to watch as it kills people with the body that was once yours, or whether you would rather live a life devoid of emotion, unable to dream and cut off from a wondrous power that was your birthright. Both sides seem pretty crappy, but it seems to me selfish to pick option A over option B.

That's a false dichotomy, especially since they do Tranquility for non-abomination-related matters as well.

Also, since I can't edit this line to appear under the quote, thank you:

At any rate, I have to start cooking tacos, so I'll be dropping out from the conversation for a little while. So let me end with saying that you are a very, very scary person Xilizhra, and your views seem even more refreshingly terrifying.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 20 juillet 2012 - 07:31 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Bollocks.

You have only one agenda on your mind, you coudn't care less about "good writing".
Templars coud be written like drooling monsters and you wouldn't bat an eye, nor would oyu call it bad writing. But if someone writes mages like that? BIOWARE, HOW COLD YOU?? WAAAAAAAAH!!!!
So hypocritical.

How would I bat an eye when "drooling monsters" is how they already are? All they need to do is maintain consistency across games.

Well, mages being stupid, insane, dangerous, idotic, irrational is how THEY already are (because I think so). Therefore DA2 was not bad writing.

Your hypocrisy stinks to high heavens. You cannot flag one-dimensional characters as bad writing only when you like the characters/faction, and dismiss it when you don't.


And if you try to steer this thread into another mage/templar debate, I will report you.
We have more tha enough of that crap and it is NOT the topic. If you can't follow the topic GTFO.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 21 juillet 2012 - 10:37 .

[Plaintiff]

Because this isn't obviously biased and self-serving at all!

Abominations were easy to fight in Origins as well. DA2 doesn't do anything very different in regard to the portrayal of mages and templars, so I don't know what you expect them to 'bring back'. You don't find the situation to be morally ambiguous anyway.

Nobody claims that mages and magic are risk-free. Nobody even claims that Templars aren't needed. They take issue with the fact that the system is overseen by a religious order of hypocritical bigots.

[nightscrawl]

Face of Evil wrote...

I know that because Dragon Age dabbles in morally complex issues that have no easy answers, a lot of people fall into the trap that these issues should be dealt with in a thoughtful, even-handed way.

Except, at the same time, the Dragon Age games are adventure RPGs. You aren't playing the moderator in a political debate; you're playing an adventurer who battles monsters in dank ruins. You fight to save yourself, the lives of innocents, or the entire world.

If the NPCs you dealt with were all level-headed and reasonable people, you wouldn't be called in to deal with them. A sane person wouldn't have commited the same crimes as Tarohne, Quentin or Ser Alrik.

I think this might be a better argument had the game taken place over a shorter period of time. If it were in a similar timespan as DAO, showing the strained relationship between the mages and templars that rapidly deteriorates it might be a bit more tolerable.

As we know from the lore, Kirkwall's situation is somewhat unique because of its location and history. I feel they should have done a better job of showing us that, making the "cornered mage who pops out an abomination" a tad more reasonable. As it is, those cases don't show that the mages try to have any self control at all. And with nothing to back it up for the player, it just seems as if everyone is crazy.

[nightscrawl]

Plaintiff wrote...

Nobody even claims that Templars aren't needed.

Anders does... ;D

[Lotion Soronarr]

Plaintiff wrote...

Because this isn't obviously biased and self-serving at all!

Abominations were easy to fight in Origins as well. DA2 doesn't do anything very different in regard to the portrayal of mages and templars, so I don't know what you expect them to 'bring back'. You don't find the situation to be morally ambiguous anyway.

Actually I do find it morally ambigious...

And abominatiosn could use a buff and thining of numbr in both games (and that goes for mages too). Altough DA2 was worse in that regard.

[ianvillan]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Because this isn't obviously biased and self-serving at all!

Abominations were easy to fight in Origins as well. DA2 doesn't do anything very different in regard to the portrayal of mages and templars, so I don't know what you expect them to 'bring back'. You don't find the situation to be morally ambiguous anyway.

Actually I do find it morally ambigious...

And abominatiosn could use a buff and thining of numbr in both games (and that goes for mages too). Altough DA2 was worse in that regard.

This I agree with, seeing one abomination should be a situation to give you pause and to actually make you panic.

I dont just mean have huge hitpoints for abominations, I would like them to be immune to magic or have high damage resistance etc.

[LobselVith8]

I think the templars and mages should be three-dimensional characters with philosophical differences. Not everyone will reach a consensus on the issue, but the narrative can treat both arguments with respect and dignity, rather than vilifying both sides and turning everyone into one-dimensional caricatures.

Also, I think pro-mage and pro-templar choices should matter. Rather than force the protagonist to fight templars and mages regardless of which faction we favor, the narrative could properly respond to our choice and have a pro-templar protagonist fight mages, and a pro-mage protagonist fight templars. I don't need to wonder why a blood mage is fighting my apostate Hawke after I decided to protect the mages from the templars - since it makes absolutely no sense. Choices should matter, not be inconsequential to Plot Railroading.

It could be like New Vegas, where you side with factions and those alliances have consequences, instead of Dragon Age II where you fought Decimus because he thought a pants-less woman, a Tevinter elf with lyrium tattoos, and a Dalish mage were really templars. Having to fight enemies because the Plot dictates is terrible, and it becomes all the more absurd when the narrative can't rationalize serious reasons for these combat sequences.

Give mages and templars depth and flaws without turning them into asinine cardboard cutouts who defy logic and reason.

[Plaintiff]

LobselVith8 wrote...
It could be like New Vegas, where you side with factions and those alliances have consequences, instead of Dragon Age II where you fought Decimus because he thought a pants-less woman, a Tevinter elf with lyrium tattoos.

You keep bringing that up, but Grace corrects him and he says he doesn't care whether they're templars or not.

His life and his freedom are on the line, and also, being a mage, he knows full-well that there are spells that can screw with his mind. It would be even more foolish for him to say "Oh, they're not wearing Templar uniforms? They must be supporters of the mage cause! I'll just lower my weapon and engage them in smalltalk."

What compelling reason is there for Decimus to think that the people who barged into his hideout and slaughtered his lackeys are really trying to help him? What they look like is irrelevent, what they did is evidence enough that they are not there to play nice.

And frankly, Decimus is absolutely correct to be apprehensive and even violent towards Hawke and friends because they are in fact there on a Templar's errand, exactly as he suspected! Thrask may have only wanted them captured, rather than dead, but Decimus has no reason to assume that Thrask is a nice guy, and clearly considers death preferable to re-imprisnment anyway. Of course he would fight.

[Gibb_Shepard]

What were they supposed to do? Coerce the zombie skeletons into seeing their leader? Seriously, what other alternative does one have when entering a cave to find a hoard of demon zombies running at you?

[IanPolaris]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

What were they supposed to do? Coerce the zombie skeletons into seeing their leader? Seriously, what other alternative does one have when entering a cave to find a hoard of demon zombies running at you?

I note that even ANDERS (who is no fan of any Templar) was almost beside himself with rage at the stupidity of Decimus when he talks to Grace.  I seem to recall his line was "Do you NORMALLY greet those that want to help you with killing zombies?"  If not it was pretty close.

-Polaris

[Fallstar]

ianvillan wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Because this isn't obviously biased and self-serving at all!

Abominations were easy to fight in Origins as well. DA2 doesn't do anything very different in regard to the portrayal of mages and templars, so I don't know what you expect them to 'bring back'. You don't find the situation to be morally ambiguous anyway.

Actually I do find it morally ambigious...

And abominatiosn could use a buff and thining of numbr in both games (and that goes for mages too). Altough DA2 was worse in that regard.

This I agree with, seeing one abomination should be a situation to give you pause and to actually make you panic.

I dont just mean have huge hitpoints for abominations, I would like them to be immune to magic or have high damage resistance etc.

The problem is that the actual demons aren't particularly scary either, with a couple of notable exceptions. (Gaxkang, Xebenkeck).

Your average desire/pride demon, and your average mage, isn't particularly hard to kill. An abomination is just one of those with the ability to cast the same spells the mage did. So unless the entire spirit class of enemies receives a buff, it's hard to justify abominations getting buffed.

That said, I think that all the demons and whatnot do need a buff. It's like when Avernus ran away from that rage demon in Warden's Keep. You'd think it'd be really tough and that. But nope, it goes down in half a minute or less.

As is, there is a significant difference between demons in lore (RRARGH SCARY! We overpower mages and make them into abominations!) and demons in game (RRARG- Oh you killed me already). It's hard to take them seriously at the moment.

[Xilizhra]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Bollocks.

You have only one agenda on your mind, you coudn't care less about "good writing".
Templars coud be written like drooling monsters and you wouldn't bat an eye, nor would oyu call it bad writing. But if someone writes mages like that? BIOWARE, HOW COLD YOU?? WAAAAAAAAH!!!!
So hypocritical.

How would I bat an eye when "drooling monsters" is how they already are? All they need to do is maintain consistency across games.

Well, mages being stupid, insane, dangerous, idotic, irrational is how THEY already are (because I think so). Therefore DA2 was not bad writing.

Your hypocrisy stinks to high heavens. You cannot flag one-dimensional characters as bad writing only when you like the characters/faction, and dismiss it when you don't.


And if you try to steer this thread into another mage/templar debate, I will report you.
We have more tha enough of that crap and it is NOT the topic. If you can't follow the topic GTFO.

The issues are different. "Templars" and "mages" aren't comparable; one is an organization and one is a biological grouping. An organization can logically have most if not all of its members actually loyal to it, whereas a biological grouping's members are going to vary widely in their opinions. The templars, I feel, were well and accurately portrayed in both games; as for the mages, while I didn't consider the ones we saw to be unrealistic themselves, we got something of a poor sample size. Of course, the logical conclusion is that we only encounter the ones who genuinely cause trouble, but as we all know, some people can't perform logic properly.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Your hypocrisy stinks to high heavens. You cannot flag one-dimensional characters as bad writing only when you like the characters/faction, and dismiss it when you don't.


And if you try to steer this thread into another mage/templar debate, I will report you.
We have more tha enough of that crap and it is NOT the topic. If you can't follow the topic GTFO.

The issues are different. "Templars" and "mages" aren't comparable; one is an organization and one is a biological grouping. An organization can logically have most if not all of its members actually loyal to it, whereas a biological grouping's members are going to vary widely in their opinions. The templars, I feel, were well and accurately portrayed in both games; as for the mages, while I didn't consider the ones we saw to be unrealistic themselves, we got something of a poor sample size. Of course, the logical conclusion is that we only encounter the ones who genuinely cause trouble, but as we all know, some people can't perform logic properly.

Templars and mages are comparable (depending on the point of comparison) and I can compare them. And I will compare them in any way I see fit.
What you feel and what I feel and what Bob feels is not the same. If your criteria for bad writing is "I dont' like it" then we have nothing to talk about.

[LobselVith8]

Plaintiff wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It could be like New Vegas, where you side with factions and those alliances have consequences, instead of Dragon Age II where you fought Decimus because he thought a pants-less woman, a Tevinter elf with lyrium tattoos.

You keep bringing that up, but Grace corrects him and he says he doesn't care whether they're templars or not.

The fact that Decimus thought they were templars in the first place doesn't make it any less asinine.

Plaintiff wrote...

His life and his freedom are on the line, and also, being a mage, he knows full-well that there are spells that can screw with his mind. It would be even more foolish for him to say "Oh, they're not wearing Templar uniforms? They must be supporters of the mage cause! I'll just lower my weapon and engage them in smalltalk."

I suppose you are arguing that a Dalish mage, a pants-less pirate, a hairy-chested dwarf, and a Tevinter elf with lyrium tattoos really come across as templars...

Plaintiff wrote...

What compelling reason is there for Decimus to think that the people who barged into his hideout and slaughtered his lackeys are really trying to help him? What they look like is irrelevent, what they did is evidence enough that they are not there to play nice.

If it's clear that at least some of Hawke's moiety crew are apostates - like Merrill - why attack them in the first place? And of course Hawke and his crew won't let themselves get killed.

Plaintiff wrote...

And frankly, Decimus is absolutely correct to be apprehensive and even violent towards Hawke and friends because they are in fact there on a Templar's errand, exactly as he suspected! Thrask may have only wanted them captured, rather than dead, but Decimus has no reason to assume that Thrask is a nice guy, and clearly considers death preferable to re-imprisnment anyway. Of course he would fight.

Decimus acts that way so Hawke can hack and slash his way through the story, which is why the mages and templars that Hawke can fight are one-dimensional. Decimus is like virtually every other mage antagonist - an insane and stupid mage who makes no sense.