278 réponses à ce sujet

[DPSSOC]

Xilizhra wrote...

Oh, I'm sure there'll be a dichotomy between the mages and Chantry that players can choose to side between, but now that the templars have left the Chantry, I believe they're being set up to be Cerberusesque villains. Bioware can't afford to take that many risks with DA3, really.

Wait how can Templars twirl their villanous mustaches while carrying a sword and shield?

Hazasaurus98 wrote...
Look at the Dalish, guys. IMO, they have the right idea of it.

Have the sole quality you need to possess to rule be magic?

Hazasaurus98 wrote...
The keeper and his/her first are the only mages in the respective clan. They are cautious using their magic, and don't even do it in public. We haven't heard of any cases where one of the dalish became an abomination. Of course, all the kingdoms of thedas are much larger than the dalish clans, but they could still learn from the elven system. Each senior mage should have an apprentice and ONLY that apprentice (I assume in the circles one mage teaches multiple students) so they can focus on teaching THAT child. It might also create a sort of bond, where the apprentice trusts their master and follows their example. And the templars? Well, they should serve more as guardians then jailors.

Earlier on, I suggested that the circle would be much more successful as a school rather than a life imprisonment.

Sorry if my point is unclear... I'm rather tired

Ah I see take the Sith approach, "There are always two, no more, no less. A master and an apprentice."

Xilizhra wrote...

The mages can't pretend their actions and decisions happen in a vaccum. By choosing to take such a drastic action as to "free" themselves while failing to take into account the danger they represent, they forced a drastic action from the part of the people who fear them. They knew it would lead to war and they went ahead with it anyway.

There's no proof of them failing to take anything into account, and no action was forced. The templars made a choice, just as the mages did. It was just the choice to begin their slaughter.

So Anders didn't force anything either? The Mages knew, or should have known, that their declaration would demand a response. They also knew, or should have known, what the nature of that response would be given the attitudes of the Templars.  If they didn't know they're morons, if they didn't care they're war mongers.

Xilizhra wrote...

Slaves are worked to near death exhaustion and can be killed on a whim from Magisters. In most Circles, all you have to do is behave and you won't be bothered.

Your attempt to claim that the "worked to death" thing is universal is rather silly.

Not really seeing as slaves in Tevinter aren't granted freedom in return for service (kind of a retirement plan). They serve until the day they die, so they are universally worked to death.

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

I hate Adrian. And we won't go through DA3 without fighting mages.

What's the point in forcing a pro-templar protagonist to fight templars, or in a pro-mage protagonist fighting mages? It's ridiculous and stupid. In New Vegas, I'm not forced to kill the NCR if I'm allied with them, nor am I forced to kill the Legion if I side with Caesar. I don't see why the protagonist should be railroaded into killing templars or mages if he (or she) is allied with a respective faction, aside from asinine writing.

[LobselVith8]

Hazasaurus98 wrote...

Look at the Dalish, guys. IMO, they have the right idea of it. The keeper and his/her first are the only mages in the respective clan.

If that was the case, Lanaya couldn't compete for the role of First with several other mages. Also, Anerin the Healer became part of Zarthrian's clan, as a mage.

Hazasaurus98 wrote...

They are cautious using their magic, and don't even do it in public.

The Dalish mages operate that way to protect themselves from the templars. Magic isn't villified by the Dalish like it is under the Chantry of Andraste.

Hazasaurus98 wrote...

We haven't heard of any cases where one of the dalish became an abomination. Of course, all the kingdoms of thedas are much larger than the dalish clans, but they could still learn from the elven system. Each senior mage should have an apprentice and ONLY that apprentice (I assume in the circles one mage teaches multiple students) so they can focus on teaching THAT child. It might also create a sort of bond, where the apprentice trusts their master and follows their example. And the templars? Well, they should serve more as guardians then jailors. 

Merrill addresses that abominations happen, and the clan has to kill the abomination.

As for templars, it's hard to convince zealots that they shouldn't be dominating mages when they think it's their divine right to do so.

[LobselVith8]

Nizaris1 wrote...

The Chantry fear mages rule, but Dalish always ruled by Mages

According to their lore, all elves used to be mages in the kingdom of Arlathan. Interaction with humanity changed that, and caused them to lose their immortality as well.

[GavrielKay]

MisterJB wrote...
Better to be careful and alive than trusting and have a knife stabbed in your back.

I'm glad I don't share that sentiment.  I think it's better to love and enjoy life than to chew my nails wondering what's going to happen.

You should also realize that ideas like that can be used by either side.  By this rule, the mages are perfectly justified in violent rebellion, because they are allowed to do whatever they feel necessary in order to avoid that Templar sword in the back...  or lobotomization, or rape, whipping etc.

The fact that there are a group of people with tremendous amount of power to abuse is a good enough reason.

So, the nobles with their armies, the Chantry with its zealots, the Qunari with their poison gasses and explosives...  better start building more towers.

For instance, in WW2 when the US imprisoned people of japanese ancestry to ensure they couldn't betray the country.

And that's generaly denounced now.

I am in favor of  anything that makes the common man more capable of fighting mages. I just don't believe that if we gave everyone a taser, that would justify abolishing the prison system.

At least you admit it's a prison system. 

For every little bit the common person equalizes the power gap (say by being able to counter certain magic) the justification for locking up mages diminishes.  Which I believe is why the Chantry doesn't distribute the Litany.  Or glyphs of neutralization, or dweomer runes, or train city guards to deal with mages up to the limit of needing lyrium...

At least the mages of Andrastian society live in luxurious towers, are clothed and fed.

This is a tired argument.  A gilded cage (and it's debatable whether most circles count as gilded) is still a cage.  People don't like being caged.  That is as much human nature as "power corrupts."  What you seem to fail to see is that by going so far and dehumanizing mages entirely, the system is set up to guarantee that eventually the mages will rebel.  The Chantry would have kept EVERYone safer had they been less draconian on the mages.  The mages wouldn't have spent 900 years being abused and the common folk would not now be facing a combination of rebelling mages and rebelling Templars.

This idea that if you treat people well, you will be well treated in return is pleasant but false.

Actually, you're using the exception to deny the rule.  In my experience, just about everyone that I treat well treats me well in return.  Those that don't will show their true nature soon enough and can be dealt with individually.

Also, mundanes have good reasons to fear mages. If you see someone
holding a gun, do you feel confortable sitting next to that person?

Also, mages have good reason to fear Templars.  Do you feel comfortable sitting next to a religious zealot who thinks you are cursed by his god? 

Of course the mages will rebel, and feel just as correct in doing so as the Chantry does in locking them up in the first place.

Slaves are worked to near death exhaustion and can be killed on a whim from Magisters.

Serfs (and city elves) are worked near to death by nobles and can be killed with little repercussions.  Time to start rounding up those nobles, they can't be trusted with that much power.

In most Circles, all you have to do is behave and you won't be bothered.

Of course the mages have no say in whether they end up in one of those circles.  And what counts as "behaving" depends on the particual religious zealot who's doing the watching just then.

Modifié par GavrielKay, 11 août 2012 - 06:22 .

[Xilizhra]

LobselVith8 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

I hate Adrian. And we won't go through DA3 without fighting mages.

What's the point in forcing a pro-templar protagonist to fight templars, or in a pro-mage protagonist fighting mages? It's ridiculous and stupid. In New Vegas, I'm not forced to kill the NCR if I'm allied with them, nor am I forced to kill the Legion if I side with Caesar. I don't see why the protagonist should be railroaded into killing templars or mages if he (or she) is allied with a respective faction, aside from asinine writing.

We've been railroaded into killing Tevinters for two games, haven't we? It's not without precedent in this series, and relatively few people complained about that.

[Plaintiff]

LobselVith8 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

I hate Adrian. And we won't go through DA3 without fighting mages.

What's the point in forcing a pro-templar protagonist to fight templars, or in a pro-mage protagonist fighting mages? It's ridiculous and stupid. In New Vegas, I'm not forced to kill the NCR if I'm allied with them, nor am I forced to kill the Legion if I side with Caesar. I don't see why the protagonist should be railroaded into killing templars or mages if he (or she) is allied with a respective faction, aside from asinine writing.

Maybe because mages and templars are not a group mind?

They may form splinter groups that are more or less extreme than the "main factions", or even directly oppose them, and they're not all going to feel the same way about your protagonist's actions. The main factions might turn on you once you feel your usefulness has been outlived. There's a lot of reasons.

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

What's the point in forcing a pro-templar protagonist to fight templars, or in a pro-mage protagonist fighting mages? It's ridiculous and stupid. In New Vegas, I'm not forced to kill the NCR if I'm allied with them, nor am I forced to kill the Legion if I side with Caesar. I don't see why the protagonist should be railroaded into killing templars or mages if he (or she) is allied with a respective faction, aside from asinine writing.

We've been railroaded into killing Tevinters for two games, haven't we? It's not without precedent in this series, and relatively few people complained about that.

I've argued that I would prefer to see some Tevinter mages who weren't antagonists.

Honestly, I don't need any more mages like Decimus, Tahrone, Quentin, Grace, or Huon. No more mage canon fodder is necessary. I think we could do with some three-dimensional characters for both factions. Let me fight mages for the templars, and let me fight templars for the mages. Enough with the inane Plot Railroading.

[Xilizhra]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

What's the point in forcing a pro-templar protagonist to fight templars, or in a pro-mage protagonist fighting mages? It's ridiculous and stupid. In New Vegas, I'm not forced to kill the NCR if I'm allied with them, nor am I forced to kill the Legion if I side with Caesar. I don't see why the protagonist should be railroaded into killing templars or mages if he (or she) is allied with a respective faction, aside from asinine writing.

We've been railroaded into killing Tevinters for two games, haven't we? It's not without precedent in this series, and relatively few people complained about that.

I've argued that I would prefer to see some Tevinter mages who weren't antagonists.

Honestly, I don't need any more mages like Decimus, Tahrone, Quentin, Grace, or Huon. No more mage canon fodder is necessary. I think we could do with some three-dimensional characters for both factions. Let me fight mages for the templars, and let me fight templars for the mages. Enough with the inane Plot Railroading.

Intriguing. You'd prefer this over everyone fighting templars and choosing whether to do so in a mage-favoring or Chantry-favoring way?

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I've argued that I would prefer to see some Tevinter mages who weren't antagonists.

Honestly, I don't need any more mages like Decimus, Tahrone, Quentin, Grace, or Huon. No more mage canon fodder is necessary. I think we could do with some three-dimensional characters for both factions. Let me fight mages for the templars, and let me fight templars for the mages. Enough with the inane Plot Railroading.

Intriguing. You'd prefer this over everyone fighting templars and choosing whether to do so in a mage-favoring or Chantry-favoring way?

Why not? Some people like the templars. I would prefer to side with the mages and have that choice really count, and not be handwaved for a compromise.

[Xilizhra]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I've argued that I would prefer to see some Tevinter mages who weren't antagonists.

Honestly, I don't need any more mages like Decimus, Tahrone, Quentin, Grace, or Huon. No more mage canon fodder is necessary. I think we could do with some three-dimensional characters for both factions. Let me fight mages for the templars, and let me fight templars for the mages. Enough with the inane Plot Railroading.

Intriguing. You'd prefer this over everyone fighting templars and choosing whether to do so in a mage-favoring or Chantry-favoring way?

Why not? Some people like the templars. I would prefer to side with the mages and have that choice really count, and not be handwaved for a compromise.

You're more generous than I, but I suspect that if the templars are a chooseable side, it makes it all the more likely to be railroaded into a compromise, to force the disparate sides together. Slanting the ending to the mages by default and allowing you to choose the degree would, I feel, work rather better.

[dragonflight288]

Xilizhra wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I've argued that I would prefer to see some Tevinter mages who weren't antagonists.

Honestly, I don't need any more mages like Decimus, Tahrone, Quentin, Grace, or Huon. No more mage canon fodder is necessary. I think we could do with some three-dimensional characters for both factions. Let me fight mages for the templars, and let me fight templars for the mages. Enough with the inane Plot Railroading.

Intriguing. You'd prefer this over everyone fighting templars and choosing whether to do so in a mage-favoring or Chantry-favoring way?

Why not? Some people like the templars. I would prefer to side with the mages and have that choice really count, and not be handwaved for a compromise.

You're more generous than I, but I suspect that if the templars are a chooseable side, it makes it all the more likely to be railroaded into a compromise, to force the disparate sides together. Slanting the ending to the mages by default and allowing you to choose the degree would, I feel, work rather better.

There's only one thing that has a historical precedent set that has the templars willingly work with mages and letting them unleash their full power. And that thing has always been invasion by an overwhelming force.

It may be the blight, (and Ostagar wouldn't count for that since almost everyone didn't believe it was a blight. Just the Wardens. Cailan doubted Duncan, Loghain doubted Duncan, and many of the soldiers doubted Duncan. Heck, even some of the Grey Warden potential recruits before taking the Joining doubted the existence of the Blight. Just a large darkspawn raiding party.

If it isn't the Blight than it's the qunari and their technology. Their poison gas and their explosives. Their cannons which no other culture has. And not just militarily overwhelming, but the Qunari's philosophy had many converts, a lot of them weren't forced into it (see northern Rivain) and that was an overwhelming challenge to the Chantry's beliefs and teachings.

Every time the Chantry and the templars face annihlation, they're not afraid to pull out the mages. The mages were the only thing the Andrastian nations of the world had to match Qunari cannons.

The difference between the past conflicts and the current one is, that if another Blight pops up, led by an Archdemon or by an Awakened Darkspawn, or the Qunari launch the invasion that's been foreshadowed for two games, the templars would almost literally have no choice but to compromise wit the mages. The mages have declared their independence from the Chantry (at a perfectly legal gathering that turned into a slaughterhouse thanks to Lambert) and the templars have cut themselves off from the Chantry and the main source of lyrium.

The templars, as they are right now, without lyrium, on a rampage, would be easy pickings for an organized army led by intelligent darkspawn or by the Ste..er...new Arishok. It would have to be compromise with the mages, die by darkspawn/qunari/Tevinter, or suffer the side effects of lyrium withdrawal.

Realistically, that's the only thing I can think of that would conceivably unite the two sides in an uneasy compromise. Anything else wouldn't be big enough as both sides demand what the other isn't willing to give.

[MisterJB]

dragonflight288 wrote...
The mages have declared their independence from the Chantry (at a perfectly legal gathering that turned into a slaughterhouse thanks to Lambert)

The mages declared their independence at a very illegal gathering after the first one was ruined by TWO extremists, Lambert and Adrian, a Seeker and a Mage.

Modifié par MisterJB, 12 août 2012 - 02:22 .

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Why not? Some people like the templars. I would prefer to side with the mages and have that choice really count, and not be handwaved for a compromise.

You're more generous than I, but I suspect that if the templars are a chooseable side, it makes it all the more likely to be railroaded into a compromise, to force the disparate sides together. Slanting the ending to the mages by default and allowing you to choose the degree would, I feel, work rather better.

I wouldn't purchase Dragon Age III if it was simply about wasting my time and pushing the reset button. I can come up with my own ending to the Templar-Mage War if the writers are going to be that lazy about the plot.

[dragonflight288]

MisterJB wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
The mages have declared their independence from the Chantry (at a perfectly legal gathering that turned into a slaughterhouse thanks to Lambert)

The mages declared their independence at a very illegal gathering after the first one was ruined by TWO extremists, Lambert and Adrian, a Seeker and a Mage.

The College of Cumberland is quite legal. The Divine told the Mages that an Assembly of the First Enchanters must convene. Lambert opposed this, but the Assembly was approved by the Divine. And she granted the mages the authority to investigate and deal with Rhys. Lambert decided to ignore the Divine.

It was a legal Assembly, suggested by the Divine.

[MisterJB]

dragonflight288 wrote...
The College of Cumberland is quite legal. The Divine told the Mages that an Assembly of the First Enchanters must convene. Lambert opposed this, but the Assembly was approved by the Divine. And she granted the mages the authority to investigate and deal with Rhys. Lambert decided to ignore the Divine.

It was a legal Assembly, suggested by the Divine.

Having the authorization of the Divine for the First Enchanters to assemble that one time to dicuss the Rite of Tranquility doesn't give them the freedom to convene whenever they please and vote on anything that comes to mind. Independence was declared in Andoral's Reach, not the White Spire, by a gathering of over one hundred mages from all Fraternities, not just First Enchanters. The Divine authorized no such thing.

Lambert had good reasons. The point of the gathering authorized by the Divine was to discuss the findings of Pharamond regarding the Rite of Tranquility. After Adrian killed him and planted the evidence in Rhy's quarters, obviously there was no point to the Conclave and what they wanted to discuss was rebellion. Which was actually true, Fiona completely disregarded the point of the Conclave by demanding a vote for independence even before they learned of Pharamond's demise.

Lambert entered the Conclave deaf to any argument from the mages but it was Adrian who provoked the situation.

[Xilizhra]

Actually, the findings of Pharamond would still be worthy of discussion if he was dead, certainly no less so than if he was going to be re-Tranquilized, which was the initial plan. I see no reason why that should change anything regarding the conclave itself.

[MisterJB]

Unless he left notes somewhere, which I don't believe he did, what Pharamond discovered died with him. I remember him giving Rhys some lessons but I don't think Lambert was aware of this.

Being re-Tranquilized wouldn't make the knowledge vanish from his brain.

[Xilizhra]

Ah, Lambert, never taking the time to verify anything but your own belief in the worst-case scenario. In all sincerity, you're a credit to the virtues of the Templar Order.

[MisterJB]

There was an extremely compelling evidence Rhys had murdered Pharamond.
Adrian is to blame, she provoked this situation because of her unwillingness to trust anyone related to the Chantry and make compromises that can satisfy both sides.

She pretty much demanded every single Tranquil to be restored, never mind the fact many of these Tranquils used to be dangerous blood mages or that Lambert had a good point. After having his mind restored, Pharamond was in no condition to resist demons.

[Xilizhra]

No compromise could ever satisfy both sides. Adrian did what was necessary, and saved Pharamond in the process. And Pharamond himself was basically high on emotions after having not experienced them for so long; I'm fairly sure he'd have recovered with time. In any case, the Rite of Tranquility is a grand-scale evil and deserves to be reversed.

[MisterJB]

There are lots of compromises that could have satisfied both sides. Adrian is just an extremist as unresonable as the worst of templars. She did not kill Pharamond out of mercy, she wanted to start a world war that is going to make millions suffer.
Pharamond may have recovered but, in the meantime, he was easy prey for any demon. The Rite of Tranquility is a necessary last resort. Some mages, like Alrik's victims, could have been elligible for restoration but any Tranquil that used to be like Uldred should remain Tranquil.

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

There are lots of compromises that could have satisfied both sides. Adrian is just an extremist as unresonable as the worst of templars. She did not kill Pharamond out of mercy, she wanted to start a world war that is going to make millions suffer.
Pharamond may have recovered but, in the meantime, he was easy prey for any demon. The Rite of Tranquility is a necessary last resort. Some mages, like Alrik's victims, could have been elligible for restoration but any Tranquil that used to be like Uldred should remain Tranquil.

Adrian's as bad as Alrik? Hah. And she was most definitely motivated by mercy, at least in part. In any case, starting the war wasn't going to be an ideal solution, just finding independence. War is the potential regrettable means here, not the end; the templars chose to prosecute the war.
As for Pharamond, he wasn't possessed on the journey back and could well have survived long enough to recover. And the Rite is not, so far as I can tell, ever truly necessary.