233 réponses à ce sujet

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra wrote...



And who are you personally most inclined to side with?

The templars are in the last place, regardless if their goal is the extermination of the mages of the return of the status quo (though in the former I doubt I'll even play their path); the mages and the Chantry are more or less in the same position. Though in the end, it depend on how their main goal will be portrayed in the game, and how those groups will be portayed in the game. If they'll be portrayed as badly as in DA2 (which I doubt) I'll stop playing the moment I have to choose (the same thing I'd have done in DA2. I picked the mages because the Circle wasn't involved in Anders's action).
I'm neutral, in the sense I haven't decided which side join, because there is a topic in which I didn't have a firm opinion. It's the mages and the freedom of living anywhere, without restrictions. I have proposed in the thread "Magic is meant to serve man...." a model (though it's not very complex) in which I said that mages could live everyhere, but there are huge to follow, with an organization (composed by mages and non-mages) with the role of wath over them. In my model, blood magic should be banned (or limited to few, experienced mages), with punishements for those mages finding using it, and with the Circle regaining the function of a school in which children learn how to control their powers. My problem with this model is that I don't know how much it could prevent mages to abusing their powers. 
The other model (which should be consider Pro-Chantry, and it's similar to the one presented earlier in this thread) presented mages that still live in determinate places, but have a far larger freedom than the current Circle system: freedom of meeting the parents, of having a family, of visiting town (and other rights that the current Circle system didn't have). Plus, the organization that should watch over the mages (not necessarily the templars) should have firm rules to prevent infair treatments for mages, and sever punishments in case of violation.
Both models are far from being perfect, and I don't know what is the thing I have to sacrifice: the security of common folk from magic, or the restriction of certain freedom for the mages.
Plus, it all depends in how the groups will explain their goal in the game. If the Chantry's model is the return of the status quo with only few concessions, I doubt I can side with. The problem is that the game will hardly give us a good presentation of how the three models work. This will make harder for me picking a side.

Modifié par hhh89, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:56 .

[Vit246]

LobselVith8 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Templars are a threat in response to mages being a threat. Accept the nature of your existence and seek compromise. Or else it's war and subjugation.

There can be no compromise.

EDIT

The mages were already under Chantry/Templar subjugation AND at war with them for 900 years. The war happened to finally be brought out into the open where nobody can ignore it anymore. And how can there be compromise when the Chantry has all the power and the Mages have none? The Chantry has no real incentive to compromise. Mages can be arbitrarily sentenced to summary execution or Tranquility based on mere accusations and suspicions. Compromise would mean decreasing Chantry power, authority and control. Hell, their core religious doctrine depends on the demonization and subjugation of mages. Afterall, the Chantry preaches how magic and mages are an evil curse and how free mages automatically equal another Tevinter Imperium.

Modifié par Vit246, 24 octobre 2012 - 11:21 .

[wright1978]

The whole tranquility thing does tend to send my sympathies scarpering to the Mages. It is sort of like me finding out the mages were going out and murdering people and then raising their undead corpses to act as their manservants.

[Palipride47]

I think the 16 page thread that discussed the issue, along with this 9 page thread discussing how to make it more "grey" have determined that there is a greyness present.

Modifié par Palipride47, 24 octobre 2012 - 09:29 .

[Maclimes]

Palipride47 wrote...

I think the 16 page thread that discussed the issue, along with this 9 page thread discussing how to make it more "grey" have determined that there is a greyness present.

And that's just the ones on the front page of the DA3 forum. Scattered throughout the DA2 and DAO boards, not to mention going back in this one forum, I think it would be accurate to say there are, combined, literally thousands of pages of this very discussion. Repeated ad infinitum.

Also, was there something about more greyness? Cause I have an idea how to add more grey into it. 

[Palipride47]

Maclimes wrote...

Palipride47 wrote...

I think the 16 page thread that discussed the issue, along with this 9 page thread discussing how to make it more "grey" have determined that there is a greyness present.

And that's just the ones on the front page of the DA3 forum. Scattered throughout the DA2 and DAO boards, not to mention going back in this one forum, I think it would be accurate to say there are, combined, literally thousands of pages of this very discussion. Repeated ad infinitum.

Also, was there something about more greyness? Cause I have an idea how to add more grey into it. 

 


Ok, I'll stop. I have an opinion but it is pointless to add.

Modifié par Palipride47, 24 octobre 2012 - 09:39 .

[Dave of Canada]

Maclimes wrote...

And that's just the ones on the front page of the DA3 forum. Scattered throughout the DA2 and DAO boards, not to mention going back in this one forum, I think it would be accurate to say there are, combined, literally thousands of pages of this very discussion. Repeated ad infinitum.

'tis true, though it's often the same six-seven people. I'd know as I'm one of them.

[Palipride47]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

And that's just the ones on the front page of the DA3 forum. Scattered throughout the DA2 and DAO boards, not to mention going back in this one forum, I think it would be accurate to say there are, combined, literally thousands of pages of this very discussion. Repeated ad infinitum.

'tis true, though it's often the same six-seven people. I'd know as I'm one of them.

Just wanted to state that your icon + your statement was amazingly hilarious put together.

[the_one_54321]

Vit246 wrote...
 the Chantry has all the power and the Mages have none?

Bwhaauh? 

Last I checked, the mages had the power blow things up with their minds. Just saying.

Vit246 wrote...
Chantry power, authority and control. Hell, their core religious doctrine depends on the demonization and subjugation of mages. Afterall, the Chantry preaches how magic and mages are an evil curse and how free mages automatically equal another Tevinter Imperium.

And this is inaccurate, how? 

I realie that different approaches are possible. But possible, probably, and practical are all entirely different concepts. And the fact of the matter remains that mages are dangerous beyond the point of being born an equal human/elf/qunari. They are NOT equal. They don't deserve equal treatment. There's no logical reason to grant them equal treatment. It's not an issue of race or creed. They are literally born with the potential to explode like a bomb.

If mages are not willing to accept this, and accept that they will be treated as a danger until they demonstrate they are not one, then it's just further death, tranquility, and subjugation. It's the only way for us normal people to make sure we stay out of harm's way.

Like I said, the Qunari have it all figured out. Safe, effective, useful. Their's should be the model for mage management. Since they will otherwise demand a full range of freedom.

[BlueMagitek]

Perhaps someone can explain what Adrian did? The usual wiki doesn't go into much detail. ~_~

I see my statement was more or less completely ignored. Par for the core for me. =D

Anyway, I used to support the Mages, but the more I thought about it (and played through other characters), the more sense the Templar side made. Yes, there are problems with the system, but it works, and every Circle isn't Kirkwall.

[CrazyRah]

MisterJB wrote...

I'm Pro-Templar and I agree with this. A more lenient Circle System. Let mages marry and keep their children with the understanding only one is allowed per couple. Let mages write to their families with the understanding those letters will be read by the Templars to ensure no escape plans are being fomented. Let their families visit.
Let mages visit cities with the understanding veteran assassin templars will allways be nearby even if you can't see them. Let mages choose whether or not they want to take the Harrowing with the understanding many of their freedom are dependant on this. Grant mages more support during their Harrowing as Malcolm did for Bethany.
Let mages know Tranquility is still the puishment for blood magic with the understanding any templar who rapes a mage will be expelled from the Order and forced to live the rest of his life without a drop of lyrium.

I'm Pro-Mage and the system you talk about is definatly something i could accept. The Circle is less of a prison and more something that benefit mages and non-mages. Mages are after all living beings and despite their magic probably could use the more accepting stance towards them instead of being seen as abominations and/or to-be abominations

[TEWR]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Also without Tranquil, Circle towers wouldn't be able to sustain themselves. It's probably their biggest source of income.

Biggest? Certainly. But not their only source of income.

Solivitus shows us that not all enchanted goods are made by the Tranquil, and Tranquil could be substituted for Dwarven Templars capable of enchanting goods.

It wouldn't balance it out completely, but still... Tranquil aren't completely necessary for the Circle to earn money. In fact, they could earn some more money by helping the populus.

And Tranquility should still be used, but should be used on the willing and the malevolent Mages. And it should certainly be reversed on people that were illegally made Tranquil or legally made Tranquil for crimes they truly didn't commit.

I'd even argue that for cases like Alrik, people like Alrik should be made Tranquil.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 25 octobre 2012 - 01:51 .

[Dave of Canada]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Solivitus shows us that not all enchanted goods are made by the Tranquil, and Tranquil could be substituted for Dwarven Templars capable of enchanting goods.

However, would the mage enchanters wish to provide their goods towards the Circles? Wouldn't they rather keep the money to themselves? In addition, Dwarven Templar would still be at risk of suffering unfortunate side-effects of lyrium earlier than the Templar simply due to how much exposure they'd get if they crafted goods (despite their higher tolerance.)

It wouldn't balance it out completely, but still... Tranquil aren't completely necessary for the Circle to earn money. In fact, they could earn some more money by helping the populus.

It's implied the Circles serves this purpose already, the Cousland family suggests getting some healing magic for Bryce which probably comes as a luxury to the nobility who'd pay for their services and a few other mentions.

And Tranquility should still be used, but should be used on the willing and the malevolent Mages. And it should certainly be reversed on people that were illegally made Tranquil or legally made Tranquil for crimes they truly didn't commit.

I'd still argue against the idea of having a "cure", as it'll eventually become spread out amongst the mages who'll "free" their tranquil brothers and sisters in time. 

I'd even argue that for cases like Alrik, people like Alrik should be made Tranquil.

Make him face his punishment as a Templar and be removed of everything, far more humilitating and impactful. Unlike mages, tranquility would simply be out of spite than any actual practical use.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...
But the Circles, while they might maintain a knowledge monopoly initially, wouldn't be able to hold onto it forever--if they did try to outright oppress anyone at all, anyway. And with the mage/mundane divide vanished, the only separation left would be between those in the government and those who are not, i.e. the same thing that happens purely between mundanes literally everywhere else. Additionally, everyone becomes far more resistant to blood magic-based mind control. It'd be initially hectic, to say the least, but with that divide of unequal capabilities gone, the end result could be far superior to what we have right now.

How? And since when?

[Vexille]

I just hope there are multiple outcomes... Ive been a pro templar mage in my main play through of both DA:O and DA2 (Basically a mage that understood magic users are just to dangerous to be allowed without supervision)... I would be very annoyed if the mage rebellion succeeded no matter what I did.

As long as the game doesent railroad us into one side being "right".

the second the game decides one faction was the correct one any illusion of "greyness" goes out the window

[Lotion Soronarr]

Well..technicly you can have both be right...and wrong... But from diffferent perspectives.


for example:
Lets say that mages are moraly right. But their solution logicly doesn't work and ends up in a clusterf***.

Let's say Templars are morally wrong. But their solution works.


Do you uphold your moral code, even if it ends up making the world a worse place?
Or do you sacrifice your morals to make it safer?

Of course, this solution would cause a riot too. I don't think the mage supporters could accept that their ways don't end up with a better world.

[Vexille]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Well..technicly you can have both be right...and wrong... But from diffferent perspectives.


for example:
Lets say that mages are moraly right. But their solution logicly doesn't work and ends up in a clusterf***.

Let's say Templars are morally wrong. But their solution works.


Do you uphold your moral code, even if it ends up making the world a worse place?
Or do you sacrifice your morals to make it safer?

Of course, this solution would cause a riot too. I don't think the mage supporters could accept that their ways don't end up with a better world.

as long as they dont railroad me into the mages winning ill be content, I'd like the rebellion to succeed/fail based on the players choices

[Lotion Soronarr]

Palipride47 wrote...

I think the 16 page thread that discussed the issue, along with this 9 page thread discussing how to make it more "grey" have determined that there is a greyness present.

Yes and no.

People can disagreee and argue about anything, grey or not. There will AWALYS be people who disagree.

However, given the (apparent) disporportionate number of mage/templar supporters, it's obvious that either there isn't enough greyness, or plenty of people fail logic. Probably a little bit of both.

After all, if the issue was truly balanced grey, then wouldn't the number of supporters for both sides be roughly equal?

I for one like to take the side of the underdog in any debate. It's more challenging.

[Aleya]

That's kind of a difficult one, because in any scenario where one group of people has (nearly) complete contol over another I'm on the side of the group being controlled. Particularly if the group in control holds that control for religious reasons. Even in Origins I never once entertained the notion that maybe the Templars and Circles could possibly have a valid reason for existing. I can roleplay it, sure, but only by making my PC prejudiced, cruel or a religious zealot. 

The Templar-Mage issue could've been a grey one. But only if established lore showed that mages turning evil was truly inevitable. If demons were stronger than mages and every last one of them is going to get taken over eventually then yes, they're dangerous enough to warrant constant watching. As it is we have mages convicted, tried and sentenced to life in prison for a crime they might one day commit. Add to that the very existence of the Rite of Tranquility and there's nothing grey about that. It's simply wrong.

The situation as is can't be made grey anymore. The lore simply doesn't make mages naturally dangerous enough to warrant the Chantry's "solution". That's unfortunate because this was a really cool opportunity, but this was cut off way back when we first set foot in Kinloch Hold.

Modifié par Aleya, 25 octobre 2012 - 09:29 .

[TEWR]

Dave of Canada wrote...

However, would the mage enchanters wish to provide their goods towards the Circles? Wouldn't they rather keep the money to themselves? In addition, Dwarven Templar would still be at risk of suffering unfortunate side-effects of lyrium earlier than the Templar simply due to how much exposure they'd get if they crafted goods (despite their higher tolerance.)

Well, that's only true if the lyrium gets into the blood. The effects of lyrium addiction or withdrawal don't stem from contact with lyrium, but ingestion or the lack of it.

As for Mage Enchanters keeping money, I think that'd ultimately depend on the Mage in question. Mages like Solivitus will no doubt help finance the Circle. Mages like Godwin.... might just keep it for themselves, especially if they're doing things illegally like he was.

It's implied the Circles serves this purpose already, the Cousland family suggests getting some healing magic for Bryce which probably comes as a luxury to the nobility who'd pay for their services and a few other mentions.

Wouldn't surprise me if the nobility did get access to that, as the rich can indeed do things for the Circle. Some Mages get perks because they have rich relatives.

I'd still argue against the idea of having a "cure", as it'll eventually become spread out amongst the mages who'll "free" their tranquil brothers and sisters in time.

That could pose a problem, certainly.

Frankly, I'm against the idea of removing a person's very emotions from their body, but I won't try and say Tranquility isn't a necessary evil. 

When used appropriately.

Make him face his punishment as a Templar and be removed of everything, far more humilitating and impactful. Unlike mages, tranquility would simply be out of spite than any actual practical use.

Well, we don't know if Tranquility on a Non-Mage would allow them to serve a practical Circle purpose. If so, then I'd argue for it.

As for removing him from the Order, only if he's sentenced to life in the dungeons. And receives a very fitting bit of poetic justice.

And is then executed in a painful fashion.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Aleya wrote...
Even in Origins I never once entertained the notion that maybe the Templars and Circles could possibly have a valid reason for existing.

That explains a lot.

The Templar-Mage issue could've been a grey one. But only if established lore showed that mages turning evil was truly inevitable. If demons were stronger than mages and every last one of them is going to get taken over eventually then yes, they're dangerous enough to warrant constant watching.

The situation as is can't be made grey anymore. The lore simply doesn't make mages naturally dangerous enough to warrant the Chantry's "solution". That's unfortunate because this was a really cool opportunity, but this was cut off way back when we first set foot in Kinloch Hold.

Mages are naturally dangerous enough already.
Pitty you can't see it.

And every single mage being taken over is not necessary at all to justify it.

[Xilizhra]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
But the Circles, while they might maintain a knowledge monopoly initially, wouldn't be able to hold onto it forever--if they did try to outright oppress anyone at all, anyway. And with the mage/mundane divide vanished, the only separation left would be between those in the government and those who are not, i.e. the same thing that happens purely between mundanes literally everywhere else. Additionally, everyone becomes far more resistant to blood magic-based mind control. It'd be initially hectic, to say the least, but with that divide of unequal capabilities gone, the end result could be far superior to what we have right now.

How? And since when?

In DA2. A mage Hawke can easily break out of Idunna's spell, and any other mage can also break it. Additionally, from what we know of Tevinter politics, blood magic-based mind control doesn't seem to be used at all in magisterial disputes, hence all the duels and assassinations, so it probably doesn't work well there either.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
But the Circles, while they might maintain a knowledge monopoly initially, wouldn't be able to hold onto it forever--if they did try to outright oppress anyone at all, anyway. And with the mage/mundane divide vanished, the only separation left would be between those in the government and those who are not, i.e. the same thing that happens purely between mundanes literally everywhere else. Additionally, everyone becomes far more resistant to blood magic-based mind control. It'd be initially hectic, to say the least, but with that divide of unequal capabilities gone, the end result could be far superior to what we have right now.

How? And since when?

In DA2. A mage Hawke can easily break out of Idunna's spell, and any other mage can also break it. Additionally, from what we know of Tevinter politics, blood magic-based mind control doesn't seem to be used at all in magisterial disputes, hence all the duels and assassinations, so it probably doesn't work well there either.

Sorry, not applicalbe.

Hawke has player immunity. The entire scene is a product of gamplay and player convenience taking precedence over fluff.
And you know too little about Tevinter to make any claims - especially about the "probable" part. Blood magic is subtle so even if it is used constantly, you'd never notice.

Mages arne't any mroe resistant to blood magic that anyone else.

[Xilizhra]

Sorry, not applicalbe.

Hawke has player immunity. The entire scene is a product of gamplay and player convenience taking precedence over fluff.
And you know too little about Tevinter to make any claims - especially about the "probable" part. Blood magic is subtle so even if it is used constantly, you'd never notice.

Mages arne't any mroe resistant to blood magic that anyone else.

It'd be player immunity if mage and nonmage Hawkes had the exact same reaction. They don't.

And prove to me that anyone's used mind control as a significant factor in Tevinter politics.

[Medhia Nox]

@Xilizhra: Avernus tells you plainly that they used blood magic to cause the nobles of Ferelden to rebel. And he said he could have done more - if Sophia would have let him.

They were powerless against it.