69 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

This so much - I did this on one of my most interesting playthroughs, although Quentin didn't really spoil it for the mages, Anders did. Quentin's actions only reinforced to my mage Hawke the evils of blood magic, not the insanity of mages as a group of people. After Anders' petulant attempt at getting the Chantry's attention, she became convinced that the best way to ensure mage freedom and safety was to fight to preserve the Circle system as a responsible mage.

With all due respect, how does this Hawke remember to breathe?

I'm sorry, just... "ensure mage freedom via genocide, despite the fact that whatever's going to happen outside of Kirkwall has already been set off by the blasted bomb" doesn't compute for me.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 31 août 2012 - 02:08 .

[brushyourteeth]

Xilizhra wrote...

This so much - I did this on one of my most interesting playthroughs, although Quentin didn't really spoil it for the mages, Anders did. Quentin's actions only reinforced to my mage Hawke the evils of blood magic, not the insanity of mages as a group of people. After Anders' petulant attempt at getting the Chantry's attention, she became convinced that the best way to ensure mage freedom and safety was to fight to preserve the Circle system as a responsible mage.

With all due respect, how does this Hawke remember to breathe?

I'm sorry, just... "ensure mage freedom via genocide, despite the fact that whatever's going to happen outside of Kirkwall has already been set off by the blasted bomb" doesn't compute for me.

I accept your respect and return it in equal measure. 

She sought to prove to the Circle that not all mages were unwilling to cooperate. There wasn't any more dramatic way to do so than to turn against those of her kind who are willing to use the lowest means possible to attain their freedom at any cost (like Anders).

[Xilizhra]

So... turn against Anders, kill the bastard. Don't kill the ones who are just defending themselves from genocidal nutballs.

[Heimdall]

The Quentin thing turned my Hawke generally more cynical about mages, but not outright pro-Templar

[DPSSOC]

Xilizhra wrote...

Neither of which are mages of Kirkwall.

If you want to play that game, Decimus, Grace, Quentin and Gascard are also all not mages of Kirkwall; the former three are all from Starkhaven, and Gascard is Orlesian. Not that Gascard ever does anything evil assuming you have a diplomatic personality... the only only mage native to Kirkwall whom I can think of is provably outright malevolent is Tahrone, and maybe the Crimson Weavers leader. Idunna crumbles like a dry twig, so I don't count her for much.

Fair enough.

Xilizhra wrote...

You mean Grace who asked you to murder a man in cold blood so that she and her friends, who's leader just raised the dead to kill you, can run off on her word? Oh yeah stand up gal that Grace. Grace was a horrible person when you met her in Act 1, and she's a horrible crazy person when you meet her in Act 3.

He's a templar. She may as well have asked you to kill an SS officer; how was she to know that he was a traitor in the making? It's not even in cold blood; he was tracking her and intended to kidnap her and her compatriots.

Is he actively attempting to assault her or her friends?  No?  It's cold blood.  To give a real world analogy it's no different than killing a police officer because he tried to bring you into custody.

Xilizhra wrote...

Aga1in you're making conclusions based on what's not seen. You don't know anything about Olivia, other than she got possessed. The problem is she might have been a blood mage for all we know, she might have enthralled her father to get him to keep her from the Circle, we don't know and we can't prove it. Since we can't determine their character, one way or another, we have to disregard them for the sake of making judgements. You may be right and all the mages we don't see are innocent little saints who fart rainbows but we can't know so we can't make decisions around that.

You, in turn, cannot make assumptions based on them being evil.

 
I don't, as I've said the nameless, faceless mages don't factor in to my judgement.  It's a strict numbers game; how many decent mages have I met vs how many rabid dogs wearing dresses have I had to put down.  The numbers favour the second group.  If I were to take the unknown masses into consideration I'd have to make an assumption which would likely be based on the observed population (generating the same results).

Edit: For the record my judgement in DA:O was the exact opposite, I meet more decent mages than not.  So Fereldan mages are ok, Kirkwall Mages, or perhaps I should broaden it to Marcher Mages, not so much.

Xilizhra wrote...
and that no one deserves to be slaughtered out of hand.

Except Templars apparently.

Filament wrote...
You can't just discard uncertainties "for the sake of making judgments" if you're going to make a judgment on the whole population. Everyone's technically "uncertain" unless proven to be guilty. That doesn't mean you throw everyone except the proven criminals out and use that to reach the conclusion that the whole population is criminal.

I make judgements on populations based upon the members of that population I've observed and interacted with. I don't throw out the non-criminals; I do take Ella, Alain, Feynriel, etc. into account, they're just out numbered. Real world example I went to school with a number of Romanian students, my judgements and expectations of Romanians are determined entirely by them. Because I can't base judgements off of probably and perhaps I can only base it off my own observations.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 31 août 2012 - 02:38 .

[Xilizhra]

Is he actively attempting to assault her or her friends? No? It's cold blood. To give a real world analogy it's no different than killing a police officer because he tried to bring you into custody.

Assuming it's a police officer from a particularly tyrannical country, maybe.

I don't, as I've said the nameless, faceless mages don't factor in to my judgement. It's a strict numbers game; how many decent mages have I met vs how many rabid dogs wearing dresses have I had to put down. The numbers favour the second group. If I were to take the unknown masses into consideration I'd have to make an assumption which would likely be based on the observed population (generating the same results).

This is ridiculous. You can't allow personal experiences to cloud your judgment like this. You have to presume innocence until proven otherwise if you have to make a judgment at all, certainly if it involves murdering all of them out of hand otherwise.

Except Templars apparently.

I would take them alive if possible. It's frequently not.

[Plaintiff]

No, none of my Hawkes change their views on magic after Leandra's murder, because I roleplay my Hawkes as rational beings.

The fact that Quentin was a mage is entirely irrelevent to his actions. Any nutjob could've killed Leandra easily without magic. If it had been a dwarf or elf that had done it, would Hawke be justified in wanting to kill all dwarves or elves?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 31 août 2012 - 02:49 .

[DPSSOC]

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't, as I've said the nameless, faceless mages don't factor in to my judgement. It's a strict numbers game; how many decent mages have I met vs how many rabid dogs wearing dresses have I had to put down. The numbers favour the second group. If I were to take the unknown masses into consideration I'd have to make an assumption which would likely be based on the observed population (generating the same results).

This is ridiculous. You can't allow personal experiences to cloud your judgment like this. You have to presume innocence until proven otherwise if you have to make a judgment at all, certainly if it involves murdering all of them out of hand otherwise.

Personal experiences are the only ones you can rely upon.  Any outside information can be biased, but your experiences aren't, they're just the things that happened.  You can look at an experience objectively and say, "Ok so where exactly did the wheels fall off?"  You can't however guarantee that any source of outside information maintained that objectivity.

As for presuming innocence.  You take a group of hamsters and observe their response to a particular stimulus.  6 of 10 hamsters observed responded in the same way.  Thus you can conlcude that most hamsters will respond in that way.  The same principle applies and while I could ask, and reasonably would use, a larger sample size than what we get in game I can only work with what I have.  Of the mages we encounter most are murdering lunatics, based on this observation I extrapolate for the rest of the population.

[Xilizhra]

So you make decisions based on anecdotal evidence? While ignoring the ones you just pass by who aren't causing trouble?

[Plaintiff]

DPSSOC wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't, as I've said the nameless, faceless mages don't factor in to my judgement. It's a strict numbers game; how many decent mages have I met vs how many rabid dogs wearing dresses have I had to put down. The numbers favour the second group. If I were to take the unknown masses into consideration I'd have to make an assumption which would likely be based on the observed population (generating the same results).

This is ridiculous. You can't allow personal experiences to cloud your judgment like this. You have to presume innocence until proven otherwise if you have to make a judgment at all, certainly if it involves murdering all of them out of hand otherwise.

Personal experiences are the only ones you can rely upon.  Any outside information can be biased, but your experiences aren't, they're just the things that happened.  You can look at an experience objectively and say, "Ok so where exactly did the wheels fall off?"  You can't however guarantee that any source of outside information maintained that objectivity.

As for presuming innocence.  You take a group of hamsters and observe their response to a particular stimulus.  6 of 10 hamsters observed responded in the same way.  Thus you can conlcude that most hamsters will respond in that way.  The same principle applies and while I could ask, and reasonably would use, a larger sample size than what we get in game I can only work with what I have.  Of the mages we encounter most are murdering lunatics, based on this observation I extrapolate for the rest of the population.

That's complete and utter nonsense and nothing close to any sort of logic. Making broad assumptions about a demographic based on limited personal experience is bigotry, plain and simple. A logical and rational person knows that just because a black man mugged them does not mean all black men are criminals.

Your analogy is ridiculously flawed. Firstly, your sample group of hamsters is far too small to extrapolate any sort of accurate results, just like Hawke's experience with mages is too limited for him to make any reasonable judgement. Hawke is a mercenary, and most of the people he meets are violent criminals who want to murder him, so by your faulty logic, everyone must be.
 
Secondly, you note that the hamsters are responding to a particular stimulus, but you don't acknowledge the fact that the mages are also responding to stimulus. In this case the stimulus is a lifetime of abuse and oppression from an ignorant and bigoted society. If poking hamsters repeatedly causes them to respond violently and bite you, then the answer is to stop ****ing poking them.

The problem is not with the mages, or with magic, but with the conditions in which mages are raised. Anyone who has even a basic knowledge of human psychology could have forseen the outcome of the Circle system from space. It's no wonder that so many mages wind up severely unhinged. What is surprising is that there are any sane mages at all.

[Exicuren]

I did it with my mage Hawke, act 1 & 2 pro mage, and then in 3 totally anti-mage and above that, blood mage. I also chose most of the angry dialogs when hawke's mother, brother and sister were mentioned.

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
Secondly, you note that the hamsters are responding to a particular stimulus, but you don't acknowledge the fact that the mages are also responding to stimulus. In this case the stimulus is a lifetime of abuse and oppression from an ignorant and bigoted society. If poking hamsters repeatedly causes them to respond violently and bite you, then the answer is to stop ****ing poking them.

The problem is not with the mages, or with magic, but with the conditions in which mages are raised. Anyone who has even a basic knowledge of human psychology could have forseen the outcome of the Circle system from space. It's no wonder that so many mages wind up severely unhinged. What is surprising is that there are any sane mages at all.

Two other basic human traits are fear of what is dangerous and the corruption of power.  It's a bit cliched but it's true.
Most of the time, those with power do not fail to abuse it and mages are born with an absurdly high amount of it that has real value beyond what society gives to it and can't even be removed.
Thedas is not an ignorant and bigoted society, the people of Thedas have a very reasonable and understandable fear of people who can burn their houses to the ground along with their families with a tought and a fickle of the wrist.
What you fail to acknowledge is that most of these mages who claim to fight in the name of freedom would still be violent even were mages free. "Freedom" is just an excuse, the Magisters of Tevinter are free and they have created a nightmarish society.

Of course, mundanes are more than capable of being killers. But would Quentin have actually murdered these women if he didn't know secrets of necromancy? And what if this knowledge becomes widespread? How many heartbroken Quentins will suddenly appear?
The problem lies, in fact, with human psychology coupled with all of the possibilities magic creates.

[Plaintiff]

MisterJB wrote...
Two other basic human traits are fear of what is dangerous and the corruption of power.  It's a bit cliched but it's true.

Well it's certainly cliched, I won't dispute that.

Most of the time, those with power do not fail to abuse it and mages are born with an absurdly high amount of it that has real value beyond what society gives to it and can't even be removed.
Thedas is not an ignorant and bigoted society, the people of Thedas have a very reasonable and understandable fear of people who can burn their houses to the ground along with their families with a tought and a fickle of the wrist.

Thedas is an ignorant and bigoted society; to mages, to elves, Qunari and each other. They lap up the blatant exaggerations and outright lies of the Chantry without question. Few individuals have actually encountered mages, they don't actually know anything beyond what the Chantry tells them and they don't want to know any more.

Magic has just as much potential for benefit in Thedas as it does for harm, and the fact that the beneficial potential is not utilised is entirely the fault of the Chantry, which controls the mages and deliberately isolates them from the people they could help. And the Chantry is fully aware of these benefits, because it willingly uses themages for warefare when it suits the Chantry to do so, and then locks them up and resumes normal activity without so much as an acknowledgement of their service. The Chantry deliberately stifles the benefits of magic because it wants to maintain control over what is possibly the most valuable resource in their world.

Our society has access to resources that have far greater potential for destruction and harm than magic does, but that doesn't stop us from utilising those resources in ways that we perceive to be beneficial.

What you fail to acknowledge is that most of these mages who claim to fight in the name of freedom would still be violent even were mages free. "Freedom" is just an excuse, the Magisters of Tevinter are free and they have created a nightmarish society.

There's nothing to "acknowledge", there's not even the slightest shred of evidence to support this claim. "Freedom" is not an excuse, the mages of the Circle have extremely legitimate greivances. Prove that they would continue to be violent if their goals were met.

Magic has nothing to do with the way Tevinter is run. If it did, then mages would not be slaves theselves, but we know that they are. If there was no magic in Thedas, Tevinter would be exactly the same as it is currently because its culture supports slavery and always did, even when (according to legend) everybody was mages.

Our own world doesn't have magic, but slavery existed and continues to exist despite that.

Of course, mundanes are more than capable of being killers. But would Quentin have actually murdered these women if he didn't know secrets of necromancy?

Probably? He was also bat**** insane, and magic didn't make him that way.

And what if this knowledge becomes widespread? How many heartbroken Quentins will suddenly appear?

Realisitically? Zero. Quentin was the result of extremely unique circumstances: he was severely mentally ill, he had access to forbidden knowledge, the means to practice it, and powerful friends willing to cover his tracks. The possibility of a similar situation occuring again is, statistically, extremely slim. Thousands, if not millions of people lose spouses and loved ones every day, but they don't embark on deranged killing sprees.

But, since Dragon Age is a fantasy videogame series and Bioware isn't known for its healthy, rational characters, I dare say a few more Quentins will pop up in the future.

The problem lies, in fact, with human psychology coupled with all of the possibilities magic creates.

Psychology is, in fact, 99.9% of the issue, and the psychological health of mages in general would be a lot better if the system and the majority view of magic was altered.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 31 août 2012 - 11:34 .

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
Well it's certainly cliched, I won't dispute that.

Also, a well comproved fact.

Thedas is an ignorant and bigoted society; to mages, to elves, Qunari and each other. They lap up the blatant exaggerations and outright lies of the Chantry without question. Few individuals have actually encountered mages, they don't actually know anything beyond what the Chantry tells them and they don't want to know any more.

I I don't see any exaggeration or lies in what the Chantry teaches. There may be some honest mistakes here and there such as the creation of Darkspawn; tough they are corect on the Magisters invanding the City.
I don't need a religious organization to teach me that which is obvious. Power is dangerous and that giving someone, anyone, the power to kill with a tought is not going to lead to wondrous places.

Magic has just as much potential for benefit in Thedas as it does for harm, and the fact that the beneficial potential is not utilised is entirely the fault of the Chantry, which controls the mages and deliberately isolates them from the people they could help. And the Chantry is fully aware of these benefits, because it willingly uses themages for warefare when it suits the Chantry to do so, and then locks them up and resumes normal activity without so much as an acknowledgement of their service. The Chantry deliberately stifles the benefits of magic because it wants to maintain control over what is possibly the most valuable resource in their world.
Our society has access to resources that have far greater potential
for destruction and harm than magic does, but that doesn't stop us from
utilising those resources in ways that we perceive to be beneficial.

Mages should be thankful that magic is the nuclear energy of Thedas or mundanes would not suffer their presence for long.
I agree that magic must be used for the benefit of mankind. But, just like we don't allow a normal citizen to own plutonium due to its danger, the idea of not controlling magic is ludicrious. The chance of an incident is incredibly high due to both inept mages who can't control their powers and demons who are constantly trying to possess them and, unlike a mage, a nuclear reactor is not capable of being wicked.

There's nothing to "acknowledge", there's not even the slightest shred of evidence to support this claim. "Freedom" is not an excuse, the mages of the Circle have extremely legitimate greivances. Prove that they would continue to be violent if their goals were met.

Magic has nothing to do with the way Tevinter is run. If it did, then mages would not be slaves theselves, but we know that they are. If there was no magic in Thedas, Tevinter would be exactly the same as it is currently because its culture supports slavery and always did, even when (according to legend) everybody was mages.

Our own world doesn't have magic, but slavery existed and continues to exist despite that.

Magic is a means to an end. Power is that end.
Selfishness and wickedness and greed are the defining traits of a Magister but it was magic that enabled the Magisters to build Tevinter. Tyrants can exist without it but they are easier to defeat than the Magister who control his soldiers through blood magic. Loghain is defeated by turning the Landsmeet against him. Had he been a blood mage, that would have been impossible.

Do you truly believe mages like Uldred or Tarohne would be interested in living equally amongst mundanes? That they would not feel their magic entitles them to rule? There are many mages in Andrastian culture who would become Magisters in an heartbeat where they free.
Mages have legitimate grievances but mundanes have legitimate reasons to fear them.

Probably? He was also bat**** insane, and magic didn't make him that way.

Magic can, in fact, make many people evil.
When you are capable of flicking an hand and those around you burst into flames or slit a wrist and force them to serve you, it is extremely easy to believe you are their natural superior and rightful master.

Realisitically? Zero. Quentin was the result of extremely unique circumstances: he was severely mentally ill, he had access to forbidden knowledge, the means to practice it, and powerful friends willing to cover his tracks. The possibility of a similar situation occuring again is, statistically, extremely slim. Thousands, if not millions of people lose spouses and loved ones every day, but they don't embark on deranged killing sprees.

I see no unique cirscunstances when I look at Quentin. I see a man who was heartbroken at the loss of his wife, discovered a way to "bring her back", had the means and set out to do it.
Thousands if not millions of people who lose their spouses would do the same in his position. Especially since magic also greatly diminishes the threat of retribution.

Psychology is, in fact, 99.9% of the issue, and the psychological health of mages in general would be a lot better if the system and the majority view of magic was altered.

The views of magic in Tevinter are quite different. The result: the most powerful mages are the opressors rather than the opressed and all mages aspire to being a Magister.
Their culture might be different but people are people. We pretend we all have these intricacies that distinguish our societies but, ultimately, peopl are selfish and greedy and wicked in Ferelden, same as in Tevinter. And if you give them magic...

Modifié par MisterJB, 31 août 2012 - 12:15 .

[mazdatazda]

.

[TEWR]

[quote]MisterJB wrote...
I I don't see any exaggeration or lies in what the Chantry teaches.[/quote]

Teaching Mages that their magic is a mark of the Maker's hatred and a condemnation on their soul is not only a blatant lie, but a psychologically damaging one as we see with Kelli.

Add into that how mages would commit suicide in the Towers because of what the Chantry preaches, and.... well... 

[quote]MisterJB wrote...
I don't need a religious organization to teach me that which is obvious. Power is dangerous and that giving someone, anyone, the power to kill with a tought is not going to lead to wondrous places.[/quote]

It's not going to lead to horrific places either. Not always. It can lead to either end of the spectrum, depending on the individual in question.


[quote]MisterJB wrote...
I agree that magic must be used for the benefit of mankind. But, just like we don't allow a normal citizen to own plutonium due to its danger, the idea of not controlling magic is ludicrious.[/quote]

Who here is arguing that magic shouldn't be regulated and controlled?  

[quote]Magic is a means to an end. Power is that end. [/quote]

So Malcolm Hawke, Bethany, Hawke, Merrill, the Dalish Mages, the Chasind Shamans, the Rivaini Seers, and the apostates that King Alistair has begun sheltering from the Chantry all desire to be violent dicks while being free?

[quote]
Selfishness and wickedness and greed are the defining traits of a Magister but it was magic that enabled the Magisters to build Tevinter.[/quote]

Tevinter existed long before what we know if its culture today. Magic just enabled the first Archon to unify the nation into one collective nation of pricks. Prior to that however, Tevinter lived peacefully with the Elves as they weren't douchebags then.

[quote]
Tyrants can exist without it but they are easier to defeat than the Magister who control his soldiers through blood magic.[/quote]

The Magisters don't control their soldiers with blood magic. 

[quote]
Loghain is defeated by turning the Landsmeet against him. Had he been a blood mage, that would have been impossible.[/quote]

I highly doubt that one blood mage sans lyrium can maintain a collective hold over the minds of dozens of nobles and not expend all of his blood, while also not being killed.



[quote]
Do you truly believe mages like Uldred or Tarohne would be interested in living equally amongst mundanes?[/quote]

Uldred? Possibly. 

Tarohne? **** no, but she was an insane clown. 

[quote]
That they would not feel their magic entitles them to rule? There are many mages in Andrastian culture who would become Magisters in an heartbeat where they free.[/quote]

We've only met a small handful. To say there are "many" is a gross exaggeration, especially since the Libertarians are not defined by wanting freedom to rule but simply freedom. And IIRC, they're the smallest recognized fraternity.

Even the Resolutionists aren't all Magisters in the making. They're just devoted to seeing their people free and will do whatever it takes -- which sometimes results in more damaging actions to the idea then helpful ones.



[quote]
Magic can, in fact, make many people evil.[/quote]

Being evil doesn't automatically make a person insane. If it did, Danarius, Caladrius, and Hadriana would all be bat**** insane.

[quote]
When you are capable of flicking an hand and those around you burst into flames or slit a wrist and force them to serve you, it is extremely easy to believe you are their natural superior and rightful master.[/quote]

First, it isn't as easy to learn mind control as you seem to think. For a blood mage to learn it, they have to willingly become an Abomination and Flemeth the Demon that they joined to. See the Scrolls of Banastor.

Second, there are runes, abilities, and whatnot that not only render such magic weaker, but can also completely neutralize magic -- see the Ferelden Tower's lower chambers, where Jowan's magic and the Warden's couldn't work.

No one's arguing for absolutely no controls and regulations to exist against mages and magic.

[quote]I see no unique cirscunstances when I look at Quentin. I see a man who was heartbroken at the loss of his wife, discovered a way to "bring her back", had the means and set out to do it.[/quote]

The man was definitely mentally on the verge of insanity prior to his wife's death. Her death was just the trigger for his insanity. This is grounds for the Circles to institute psychological exams on both Mages and Templars, so as to weed out the Quentins/Tarohnes and the Alriks/Karrases.

It's also grounds to better institute psychological reforms. We know very little about Quentin's wife. For all we know she was ill and Quentin was forbidden from seeing her or even healing her.

We do know Starkhaven's Circle -- where it's hinted Quentin was from -- was not a pleasant Circle and that Kirkwall is worse then Starkhaven ever was. Alain tells us that Starkhaven's Circle was bad, but that -- as I said -- Kirkwall's is worse.

So it's not a far stretch to assume that maybe Starkhaven's Circle was a part of the problem. Key word being maybe, since we know very little about Quentin, his wife, or even Starkhaven's Circle.

[quote]
The views of magic in Tevinter are quite different. The result: the most powerful mages are the opressors rather than the opressed and all mages aspire to being a Magister.[/quote]

Not all. Most, maybe.

[quote]
Their culture might be different but people are people. We pretend we all have these intricacies that distinguish our societies but, ultimately, peopl are selfish and greedy and wicked in Ferelden, same as in Tevinter. And if you give them magic...
[/quote]

I don't really see many Fereldans being selfish and greedy, even with magic.

Orlais on the other hand....

[DKJaigen]

The whole power corrupts thing is childish and immature . MisterJB their millions of people in this world that can make vanish without a trace and get away with it. Do you mistrust these people as well. We have our own magic in out world : information, martial prowess and money.

[frostajulie]

I played a self loathing anti mage mage. She hated the templars and she hated mages and she hated herself. She romanced Fenris and she killed Anders but in the end I still could not side with Meredeth.

I have also played a few antimage Hawkes that simply could not side with Meredith at the end of the game.