817 réponses à ce sujet

[DKJaigen]

What we really need in DA3 is a faction that the normal people caant defeat without the aid of mages it will settle the matter once and for all And i doubr that you can chose the templar faction to join as they are traitors to orlais and will be hunted by the orlesian army. or you can only join the templars still loyal to the divine.

[Inquisitor Arc]

Plaintiff wrote...

We know that Corypheus and others broke into the Black City and caused themselves to be tainted, there is no evidence that they spread the taint to anyone else, or that they triggered the first Blight, and it's equally possible that Darkspawn existed prior to this event.

Now you're just being ridiculous

[esper]

Tiger Ace 32 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

We know that Corypheus and others broke into the Black City and caused themselves to be tainted, there is no evidence that they spread the taint to anyone else, or that they triggered the first Blight, and it's equally possible that Darkspawn existed prior to this event.

Now you're just being ridiculous

No, I still believe the dwarves version before the chantrys. The darkspawn came from below and the first were dwarves. I personally think that Corypheus/The Architecht and co. were the first awakened darkspawn, that will say the first darkspawn with a sentinence. Wherever that is a good or bad thing, I do not know.

[Inquisitor Arc]

So then is it mere coincidence that Dumat was the first Archdemon, and Corypheus a worshiper of Dumat? The dwarfs don't really have an origin story for the darkspawn do they? All they know is that the darkspawn appeared in the deep roads. The Old Gods were buried in underground prisons, therefore wouldn't the first darkspawn use the deep roads to go to the Old Gods. Assuming the chantries version, and Corypheus's testimony is somewhat accurate.

If DA:A has taught us anything awakened darkspawn are too dangerous, and they should all be eradicated.

[Plaintiff]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
So where were they and what were they doing?

How the hell should I know?

If they existed prior to that, how come no one ever mentioned or run into them (not even the dwarves)?

Who says they didn't? In dwarven records, they say that the darkspawn came from underground, and the first were dwarves. Unless you have a precise, and accurate timeline, who's to say?

How comes they appreaed EXACTLY at the time the magisters did their thing?

And where is this stated?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 09 novembre 2012 - 11:26 .

[Plaintiff]

Tiger Ace 32 wrote...

So then is it mere coincidence that Dumat was the first Archdemon, and Corypheus a worshiper of Dumat?

It could easily be. The Tevinters worshpped the Old Gods long before the darkspawn appeared, and Dumat was supposedly the strongest, so it make sense that he would receive particular attention. It doesn't mean anything. At best, it's circumstantial.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Plaintiff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
So where were they and what were they doing?

How the hell should I know?

If they existed prior to that, how come no one ever mentioned or run into them (not even the dwarves)?

Who says they didn't? In dwarven records, they say that the darkspawn came from underground, and the first were dwarves. Unless you have a precise, and accurate timeline, who's to say?

How comes they appreaed EXACTLY at the time the magisters did their thing?

And where is this stated?

Was there anything in the game or lore to indicate otherwise?

Is there ANYTHING at all to indicate the humans, elves and dwarves don't agree on the time of the frist apperance of darkspawn? Especially since it's so important a matter to all races.

It's kinda of a BIG thing to simply slip by without no one noticing.

[Robhuzz]

Like with any religion, when someone wishes it, they'll always find a way to bend a religious text or ideal to fit their own views.

The Chantry is no different. To me, the 'magic is meant to serve man and not rule over him' quote from the chant of light actually means that one may not use magic to force others into doing their bidding (eg: Thou shall not use blood magic!), and instead should be used to help people. This is quite logical seeing as this chant was written at a time when they faced the tevinter magisters and their blood magic. It makes sense that they would want to forbid the practice of blood magic.

To go from that to 'mages need to be locked up and the chantry needs to keep a close watch, having a divine right to do so' is... stretching it a bit far, to say the least.

What we really need in DA3 is a faction that the normal people caant defeat without the aid of mages it will settle the matter once and for all And i doubr that you can chose the templar faction to join as they are traitors to orlais and will be hunted by the orlesian army. or you can only join the templars still loyal to the divine.

The Qunari? It took the chantry 3 exalted marches to fight them to a standstill, and they would not have fared so well without the mages of the circle.

Modifié par Robhuzz, 09 novembre 2012 - 11:42 .

[thibaut72]

I don't think it's easy to explain when and where the first darkspawn are shown.

As LS, said, we are in medieval society, and there is no research about past. Many stories (for Dalish and Dwarves) are lost forever, and i don't think Chantry tell all the Truth about it In the time of Andraste, they fought against an evil Empire who was governed by mages. With or without the Maker, it was a war and a story. A story became a legend and a religion...

All occur after this war, the creation of the Templar, the Circle and came from a need of the society and the new religion. But after several centuries, it's a need to make some reform. Of course, it's not easy to reform and evolve the mind of people (it's because we are the hero who can do that), but it must be done without the fear of some events that could occur.

Mage can become abomination, but the big majority (more than 95%) will never change and made pact with demons. Most of mage use their magic for the community (make artefact potion or magic crafting, fight darkspawn, cure desease,...). So i still can't think that all is nice in this nice world...

[General User]

Auintus wrote...

General User wrote...

I had to search the wiki to find out who the hell "Levyn" was.  But anyways... 

First of all I don't think that good and evil work that way; one can't take X units of good and stack them against X units of evil and say that they "balance out."  One act of evil can overshadow and counter a lifetime of good, while a single act of good might serve to redeem a person in the eyes of some... but not others.  Too much is relative.

Besides the "good" that mages could do can only ever remotely be said to match the "evil" in terms of potential.  The flawed nature of human beings being what it is, and the nature of magic in Thedas being what it is, the scales will be inevitably weighted far and away towards the "evil" side.

And, hanging over it all is the concept of a rational societal reaction to danger.  It doesn't matter how many desperately needed jobs it might bring, setting up a fireworks factory in the middle of a residential community is a bad idea.

Sorry about that. I prefer to call him Levyn. I think he's earned it by that point. But that's probably biased.

A well-trained and morally sound mage would do much more good than ill to any community. If mages and templars cooperated than any maleficar and abominations could be hunted and neutralized much more quickly and with fewer casualties. The mages that turn to dark arts as their only way out of the Circle would have no reason to do so. And, in addition, you gain the opportunity to show people that a mage is not automatically an abomination if not shackled. Yes, abominations would still come to be, but with fewer templars necessary to watch the mages, more could be employed in hunting them down.

But that's just it.  Being "morally sound" might be sufficient for a non-mage to become a fine and upstanding member of Thedan society, but being morally sound is simply not enough for a mage.  If one expects any good to come of granting mages any major degree of freedom in society, mages need to be (no dwarven reference intended) paragons of integrity, titans of will, pillars of virtue, and models of restraint.  The nature of their powers, and the natural advantages such would give them in mainstream Thedan society, would leave no room for anything else.

Modifié par General User, 09 novembre 2012 - 12:12 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Robhuzz wrote...
Like with any religion, when someone wishes it, they'll always find a way to bend a religious text or ideal to fit their own views.

The Chantry is no different. To me, the 'magic is meant to serve man and not rule over him' quote from the chant of light actually means that one may not use magic to force others into doing their bidding (eg: Thou shall not use blood magic!), and instead should be used to help people. This is quite logical seeing as this chant was written at a time when they faced the tevinter magisters and their blood magic. It makes sense that they would want to forbid the practice of blood magic.

To go from that to 'mages need to be locked up and the chantry needs to keep a close watch, having a divine right to do so' is... stretching it a bit far, to say the least.

Not really.
Mages are dangerous and need to be watched. This is fact of the setting. Religion has no bearing on it.

Even without the Chantry, the templars and the the Circles make sense.

And by your own admision, isn't it possible that you are bending the text ot fit your own views?
After all, you are not expempt from that rule, are you?

The Qunari? It took the chantry 3 exalted marches to fight them to a standstill, and they would not have fared so well without the mages of the circle.

That doesn't make the battle unwinnable.
They fought the qunari to a standstill. Then they pushed them back with the aid of mages.

A powerfull opponent is not an invincible opponent.

[Lotion Soronarr]

thibaut72 wrote...

I don't think it's easy to explain when and where the first darkspawn are shown.

As LS, said, we are in medieval society, and there is no research about past. Many stories (for Dalish and Dwarves) are lost forever, and i don't think Chantry tell all the Truth about it In the time of Andraste, they fought against an evil Empire who was governed by mages. With or without the Maker, it was a war and a story. A story became a legend and a religion...

You forget one minor detail...TheDas before the Blight was not some backwater land with no kigdoms or written words. Books where written, history recorded.
So there would be historical records

[Plaintiff]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Was there anything in the game or lore to indicate otherwise?

Is there ANYTHING at all to indicate the humans, elves and dwarves don't agree on the time of the frist apperance of darkspawn? Especially since it's so important a matter to all races.

It's kinda of a BIG thing to simply slip by without no one noticing.

Yes, plenty.

For starters, the very fact that it is referred to as "lore" indicates that it should be taken with a pinch of salt.

We're talking about mere scraps of ancient documents, we don't know when they were written, so to assume that they were all written even within the same century of each other is a massive leap of logic. Also, it is beyond unlikely that these documents have been preserved in perfect condition from the time they were written.

[Wulfram]

Paragon Aeducan seems to have spent the years prior to the First Blight keeping the Deep Roads clear of "surface bandits", not darkspawn. So it seems like the dwarves timeline fits with the Chantry account at least approximately

[MisterJB]

esper wrote...
No, I still believe the dwarves version before the chantrys. The darkspawn came from below and the first were dwarves. I personally think that Corypheus/The Architecht and co. were the first awakened darkspawn, that will say the first darkspawn with a sentinence. Wherever that is a good or bad thing, I do not know.

There is no "dwarf version" They have no clue where the darkspawn came from, they just appeared one day.
Now, the Chantry does claim that the Tainted Magisters fled underground. If they did so and experimented on captured dwarves, then it makes sense that the first darkspawn would have been genlocks which come from dwarves broodmothers, thus explaining why the dwarves claim the first darkspawn looked like them.

So, we have confirmation that Magisters did break into the Golden/Black City. We know that the Archdemons are not normal dragons because of their ability to survive through the taint, the fact that in "The Calling", a Dragon Age novel, the darkspawn clearly avoided the lair of an High Dragon rather than attempt to taint and create an Archdemon as well as the fact that the Architect knows where the Old Gods were imprisioned. We also know that the darkspawn can't have developed naturally; they don't require food, air, sleep, the taints sustains them and grants them agelessness; they must have been created by magic.

Against all of this we have...nothing. In-game, no one else has any explanation for their existence. I'm still in doubt regarding the existence of the Maker but I do believe there is very strong evidence that the Taint was created in the Black City and spred to Thedas through the Tainted Magisters.

[Robhuzz]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Robhuzz wrote...
Like with any religion, when someone wishes it, they'll always find a way to bend a religious text or ideal to fit their own views.

The Chantry is no different. To me, the 'magic is meant to serve man and not rule over him' quote from the chant of light actually means that one may not use magic to force others into doing their bidding (eg: Thou shall not use blood magic!), and instead should be used to help people. This is quite logical seeing as this chant was written at a time when they faced the tevinter magisters and their blood magic. It makes sense that they would want to forbid the practice of blood magic.

To go from that to 'mages need to be locked up and the chantry needs to keep a close watch, having a divine right to do so' is... stretching it a bit far, to say the least.

Not really.
Mages are dangerous and need to be watched. This is fact of the setting. Religion has no bearing on it.

Even without the Chantry, the templars and the the Circles make sense.

And by your own admision, isn't it possible that you are bending the text ot fit your own views?
After all, you are not expempt from that rule, are you?

This is true. Then again I stated that this was my own interpretation to the chant. There's no 'right' or 'wrong' version of it, there's just interpretations. As far as mages being dangerous and they need to be watched go, swords are dangerous as well, as are bows, poisons, the whole lot. This doesn't mean every swordsman or archer needs to be watched constantly. Perhaps it's just my pro mage bias speaking here, but I find the idea of the chantry governing the lives of mages to be downright ridiculous. They gave themselves the right to do so, and fall back to the chant of light to explain why it needs to be so. Thus why I made a reference to the chant of light as a religion.

Modifié par Robhuzz, 09 novembre 2012 - 12:56 .

[thibaut72]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You forget one minor detail...TheDas before the Blight was not some backwater land with no kigdoms or written words. Books where written, history recorded.
So there would be historical records

That's true ! But did you one time see one codex entry, one reference (other than the chantry one) to what's happened before the first Blight ? Maybe, and i say maybe, there was records about darkspawn, or records about taint...

In this day, we can only believe in the Chantry story, and as said in the beginning of DAO, when you first meet Wynne, "Chantry tell many stories". But nothing occur by chance !

Robhuzz wrote...

This is true. Then again I stated that
this was my own interpretation to the chant. There's no 'right' or
'wrong' version of it, there's just interpretations. As far as mages
being dangerous and they need to be watched go, swords are dangerous as
well, as are bows, poisons, the whole lot. This doesn't mean every
swordsman or archer needs to be watched constantly. Perhaps it's just my
pro mage bias speaking here, but I find the idea of the chantry
governing the lives of mages to be downright ridiculous. They gave
themselves the right to do so, and fall back to the chant of light to
explain why it needs to be so. Thus why I made a reference to the chant
of light as a religion.

Maybe the Chant of light is also a reference to Teventer and his Empire. Andraste fought against Tevinter which is always governed by mages. That can means "Don't make the same error as in Tevinter", where the magic rule over humans...

Modifié par thibaut72, 09 novembre 2012 - 01:04 .

[Medhia Nox]

Except for Wynne and Irving - nearly every mage has been shown as utterly self-serving.

Uldred - Avernus - Zathrian - Jowan - Merrill - Orsino - Anders - Morrigan

And now - because they didn't have the strength of character to be civil resisters - they have doomed the mages to centuries more of hate.

There is no good solution for the mages at the end of Dragon Age 3 - the destruction the rebellion of a minority has already caused - will be remembered by the people of Thedas.

Senior Enchanter Torrin (DA: Origins - mage origin) foreshadows the outcome of this war. "The short sighted Libertarians will start a war and drag us all down with them."

====

People on the BSN can argue until they're blue in the face about a predominantly "good" society of mages... but it hasn't been shown.

When you push a man to desperation - he becomes one of two things: A better or worse man than he was before. We have been shown that nearly all mages - when pushed to desperation - choose the latter.

[MisterJB]

Robhuzz wrote...
As far as mages being dangerous and they need to be watched go, swords are dangerous as well, as are bows, poisons, the whole lot. This doesn't mean every swordsman or archer needs to be watched constantly.

Sword and bows are not as dangerous as magic. To use a real world equivalent, we allow certain civillians to carry firearms but under no circunstance would we allow a nuclear weapon to be lost. Worse of all, this nuclear weapon is sentient and capable of emotion that can lead to it exploding and has third parties, demons, preying on it.

[Wulfram]

MisterJB wrote...

Sword and bows are not as dangerous as magic.

Our experience says otherwise.

Fenris is much more dangerous than Emile de Launcet.

[Plaintiff]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Except for Wynne and Irving - nearly every mage has been shown as utterly self-serving.

Uldred - Avernus - Zathrian - Jowan - Merrill - Orsino - Anders - Morrigan

Jowan and Anders risked their lives to help others, Anders consistently so for the better part of a decade.

Even if your assessment of their characters was not patently false, so what? Plenty of non-mage characters were equally selfish. There is nothing wrong with putting your own wellbeing before that of others. Most people do.

Holding mages  (any group, for that matter) to a different standard of behaviour from everyone else is hypocrisy.

When you push a man to desperation - he becomes one of two things: A better or worse man than he was before. We have been shown that nearly all mages - when pushed to desperation - choose the latter.

Seems to me that the solution would be to stop pushing them, then.

Define "better". Define "worse".

Why do the mages receive all the blame, while the provocateurs escape culpability? If you attack someone and they attack you back, that is your own damn fault. You were the aggressor in that situation, the other person is just defending themselves. When you create a monster, you have no right to complain when it stomps on your house.

People have the absolute right to protect their freedom and their lives with every single tool at their disposal. If the mages happen to have more effective tools than everyone else, well then that's just too damn bad.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 09 novembre 2012 - 02:23 .

[The Elder King]

Wulfram wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Sword and bows are not as dangerous as magic.

Our experience says otherwise.

Fenris is much more dangerous than Emile de Launcet.

Fenris was enhanced with lyrium, and probably with the use of magic. His abilities aren't natural.

[Auintus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Then Wynne drove a clearly reclusive man nuts. Again, they must be understood as people.

As I said before - it wont' work. It can't work.
And you need to read a bit more on blood magic.

And more handwave?

Real people can go nuts under pressure just as much as Uldred did. He just had a bit more power behind it.

We can't dig inside people's minds today. Otherwise, corruption would be easy to detect.
You misunderstand the human mind if you think that one cannot be raised dogmatic. Teach mages that their powers are a gift to be used for the greater good, from a very young age.

So you propose brainwashing as an ideal? Cute.

Also, what part of "no incorruptable pure pureness" are you having trouble grasping?
Even if blood magic could be used the way you describe (which I seriosuly doubt) it still hingest on trusting a blood mage and the idea that he is incorruptable.
Won't happen.

Brainwashing is such an ugly word. If instilling a child with a set of ideals is brainwashing, no one would be allowed to raise their own kids.
I'm thinking more The Fettered, if we're going with TVTropes. Bound to a set of ideals and utilizing powers towards that end. I never suggested that no mage would ever be corrupted. I just think that the number is far lower than your estimate.

I never said fine. More "acceptable," Better than imprisoning anyone capable of causing anyone harm, no matter if they have or not.

How is million dying "more acceptable". I dont' get it.
You postulate that abominatiosn are "not a big deal" because the kigdoms/countries still exist and haven't fallen.
And I just showed you why such lines of thinking are redicolous.
Humans are ressilient.
Loosing half a population of a country, and it will still go on. That doesn't make such large scale death and destruction irrelevant.

I'm saying that a million people dying is better than a situation where any influencial individual is imprisoned to prevent the start of such a war. Especially considering said individual could do good with that ability, but intentions don't matter in the Circle. Individual=mage, war=abomination. Just because they can doesn't mean they will.

Modifié par Auintus, 09 novembre 2012 - 02:30 .

[Auintus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Auintus wrote...

A well-trained and morally sound mage would do much more good than ill to any community. If mages and templars cooperated than any maleficar and abominations could be hunted and neutralized much more quickly and with fewer casualties.

I don't see how is this possible.
Unless mages devised a magical spell that temeports and entire army of templars right to the locatio nof every corrupt or turned mage.

No way mages roaming free can result in anything other than the opposite - maleficr/abominatiosn would be hunted down much more SLOWLY and with MORE casualties.

The goal is to not need such strict oversight once a mage has graduated. That means templars only have to watch the apprentices and evaluators.
Moving faster isn't the only way that mages can help. There was an entire tree dedicated to anti-magic magic in DA:O

The mages that turn to dark arts as their only way out of the Circle would have no reason to do so.

Good. What about the other 999 reasons?

999? I doubt that. Any who would deal in that stuff for personal power would be weeded out in the Circle, before being let out from under the eye of the templars.

Yes, abominations would still come to be, but with fewer templars necessary to watch the mages, more could be employed in hunting them down.

Opposite. Without mages being centralized, you'd need MORE templars (a LOT more) to mainain a similar level of oversight. And even then the threat level to the populace at large is still larger.

The goal is to not need that level of...I think I said that before. Never mind.
Templars would be able to do more with the help of mages. Not all would choose to leave the Circle.

[Auintus]

General User wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Sorry about that. I prefer to call him Levyn. I think he's earned it by that point. But that's probably biased.

A well-trained and morally sound mage would do much more good than ill to any community. If mages and templars cooperated than any maleficar and abominations could be hunted and neutralized much more quickly and with fewer casualties. The mages that turn to dark arts as their only way out of the Circle would have no reason to do so. And, in addition, you gain the opportunity to show people that a mage is not automatically an abomination if not shackled. Yes, abominations would still come to be, but with fewer templars necessary to watch the mages, more could be employed in hunting them down.

But that's just it.  Being "morally sound" might be sufficient for a non-mage to become a fine and upstanding member of Thedan society, but being morally sound is simply not enough for a mage.  If one expects any good to come of granting mages any major degree of freedom in society, mages need to be (no dwarven reference intended) paragons of integrity, titans of will, pillars of virtue, and models of restraint.  The nature of their powers, and the natural advantages such would give them in mainstream Thedan society, would leave no room for anything else.

Mages wouldn't completely take control unless society let them. And if raise properly in the Circle, they would treat magic more as a duty to serve others rather than a tool with which to serve themselves.