7 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Tancred Of The Chantry wrote...

Yes, I know, another mages and templars thread? But I’m hoping this one is different enough to warrant it being a separate thread.

Suppose you support the templars, do you still use Bethany, Merrill, or Anders in the party? If you’re anti-mage, would it not make sense to avoid using them in-game? Or do their benefits outweigh or justify their use, despite any anti-mage sentiment? I suppose the same could be asked about magic weapons: after all, they are enchanted through the use of lyrium, which itself is essential to magic—or can you be anti-mage without being anti-magic?

One argument I see at times, is that all mages want mage supremacy; for Thedas to be a magocracy, like Tevinter. It resembles Fenris’ logic: the power of magic, Blood Magic or otherwise, is a corrupting influence that no mage, once free of the Circles or Templars, can resist abusing. But if you believe that, why do you believe that? Take the Dalish, for instance, they have no circles and their mages are free as well as rulers of the clan. Would you consider the various Dalish clans mini-magocracies? Is a Keeper, like Marethari or Zathrian, essentially an elf magister?

The Dalish Origin makes it clear that the Keepers aren't dictators, nor are they the absolute rulers of the clan (as we know from the story about the Dalish Warden's parents). And anyone can leave the clan of their own volition, as we see with Merrill and Velanna. No one is forced to submit to servitude under the penalty of death or tranquility, like the mages are in the Circles of Magi.

Magisters in Tevinter enslave mages and non-mages alike, it's not as though Tevinter is a paradise for mages. The last time a mage tried to create a society of equals was with Aldenon the Wise, who was working with Teyrn Calenhad to establish a nation from the warring teyrnirs of Ferelden, and Aldenon was betrayed by Calenhad to the Chantry and the templars.

Furthermore, I don't think it's accurate to equate the Avvar, the Chasind, the Rivaini seers, or the Dalish with the Magisters of the Imperium. There are clear differences between those non-Andrastian societies that have free mages living alongside non-mages, and the Imperium that enslaves mages and non-mages alike.

Tancred Of The Chantry wrote...

What I’m getting at is this: do you see all mages as corrupt and untrustworthy? If so, how do you perceive mages like First Enchanter Irving or Wynne? Have they mastered self-control and are exceptions to the rule (e.g. unlike mages like Velanna, if you consider her untrustworthy or dangerous), or can they not be trusted?

I'm sure people have different views on First Enchanter Irving and Senior Enchanter Wynne, although neither one is anything like Finn.

While Irving and Wynne are moderates, both have their own issues with what the Chantry does. Irving will thank the Hero of Ferelden for freeing the Circle at the end of Origins (post-Magi Boon), saying the Hero has freed the mages from "their shackles." Wynne asks The Warden (from the Circle) to return to the Circle to take a position as a leader, to change the Circle, and never contests that it's a "prison" or an "oppressive place," even arguing that The Warden can change the latter (with time). Wynne will also argue in the City of Amaranthine that the Circles can't break free from the Chantry (because of the meeting in Cumberland) because the Chantry would rather kill all the mages rather than see them free.

Tancred Of The Chantry wrote...

Lastly, perhaps regardless of personal feeling, you roleplay each Hawke you create. If that’s the case, feel free to describe how your Hawke(s) would answer the questions instead.

Please understand that I’m not trying to attack anyone’s opinions. I’m genuinely curious to know how players in this community think and feel regarding mages. I'm asking questions that are, I hope, provocative and interesting and may have no definitive answers. Also, now that the war is on and Dragon Age III: Inquisition is confirmed, I imagine it’s possible if not probable the DA3 protagonist will pick sides, too.

My Surana Warden asked for the Magi Boon, and I had apostate Hawke argue that the templars should be overthrown and that the Chantry controlled Circles were slavery. I'm sure you can guess what side I would pick if I purchase Dragon Age III.

[thats1evildude]

I know that not all mages are eager to start up a new Tevinter Imperium, but some of them undoubtedly are like that, because mages are people and some people are greedy and power-hungry. That's just a basic fact of human nature.

Now, all mages in Thedas outside of the Tevinter Imperium and the qunari-controlled lands are currently on the same side: they're all fighting the templars for freedom. At some point or another, some mages will say that the only way to gain freedom will be oppress all the mundanes because the mundanes will never willingly allow mages to be live as free men. Some of those mages will really believe that they have to be in charge, and some will just be out for power.

What's going to happen when this schism appears in the ranks of the mage rebellion? Are the mages who don't believe in oppressing the mundanes going to fight the ones who do? Do they stand a chance of winning when the truly evil mages will stoop to demon-summoning and blood magic? And if they fight each other, will they stand a chance of then defeating the templars?

I think you will see many mages throw their lot in with the pro-oppression side simply because they have no choice, because it's a fight they can't win no matter how they approach it. This is what has happened time and again with revolutions throughout history that had no further goal than a general goal of "freedom"; soon, it's the extremists calling the shots, and the revolution becomes even worse than their former oppressors.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 10 octobre 2012 - 04:05 .

[Maria Caliban]

Tancred Of The Chantry wrote...

Suppose you support the templars, do you still use Bethany, Merrill, or Anders in the party? If you’re anti-mage, would it not make sense to avoid using them in-game? Or do their benefits outweigh or justify their use, despite any anti-mage sentiment? I suppose the same could be asked about magic weapons: after all, they are enchanted through the use of lyrium, which itself is essential to magic—or can you be anti-mage without being anti-magic?

I played a mage Hawke who used Merrill and supported the Templars.

But I wasn't 'anti-mage' at all.

[fchopin]

To me your question does not make sense, the whole point of Bethany and Carver was part of the Bioware plan to start people thinking which side to pick but Bioware made a big mistake as they forgot that we could play a mage in DAO so that changes how i make my decision.

In DAO i played a mage in the circle so i would base all my decisions on how that played out.

After passing my test in the circle i would be a prisoner in the circle with very few chances on being allowed to go out in to the world. The decision on if was allowed out would not be mine so basically i would be a prisoner and my future would depend on the decision of other people.
I would never accept confinement of any kind unless it was my decision so if i was a mage i would escape at the first chance i got, i would use any of my powers to escape and kill anyone who tried to stop me. That does not mean i would use blood magic as i have no idea what that entails.
To the question of using mages as companions that would depend on what kind of magic they practise.
The question is not which side i would pick as there is nothing to discuss, my answer would be that i would never allow myself to be confined in the circle. If a mage is a slave to spirits then the person is no longer a person but a slave so he does not count as a mage but a slave.

[BanksHector]

Just because I support the Templars does not mean I am anti-mage. I believe that the templars are very much needed along with the Circles. The mages need a place to where they can come and learn at and the circles do a good job providing that. After earning trust, the mages need to have more freedom then they get now.

I would prefer the Circle to be ran different then they are, but I believe 100% they are needed along with the templars.

In both games, I have supported the mages with my characters even with me being pro templar myself. The way the choice is given in the games makes it very hard for me to side with the templars.

In my lastest run of DAO, I went to the Circle after doing Redciffe. I knew that the mages was the only hope to save everyone so I had to try my best to save them.

In DA2, I find it very hard to side with the templars because I know it was partly my fault on what Anders did. I helped him get what he needed. I could not let the mages die for something that I helped with or a companion did.

Modifié par BanksHector, 15 octobre 2012 - 03:34 .

[MisterJB]

I think Malcolm Concord does a good job presenting my point of view. Just replace "mutant" with "mage".

[GodWood]

Pro-templar =/= Anti-mage.