271 réponses à ce sujet

[Auintus]

Ser Bard wrote...

When it comes to cameplay and lore where is the line with magic? Are only primal magics visible?

Hard to tell. I like to think that someone can see a fireball flying at them, or that Fade Shroud would actually have that visible effect.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Auintus wrote...
That's how you track them. You figure out who did it the old-fashion way

Which makes mage policing a nightmare and free mages an even bigger nightmare.
As said before - mages can easily commit crimes and hide any tracks even better.

When? I can't believe I missed something like that.

Redcliffe. Not nuking in the literal sense, but destruction of an entire town.
There was another abomination that nearly wiped out a huge city in the lore.

There will ALWAYS be reasons for a mage to give in.
You live in a fantasy thinking that that things will magicly be better.

It won't be giving in. They would have to be a legitamately selfish person. You'll never get rid of people like that.
What will change is that mages will no longer be treated as monsters. They'll no longer think, "Fine, they want a monster. I'll show them a monster."

And in place of that motivation, there will come a dozen more - curtosy of living outside of the Circle.

I see you completely avoided the point of it.
Also nice job lying to yourself. You're good at that.

Which part was the point, then? I thought the point was the temptation, which I addressed.
I don't lie to me. If you are just going to insult me, leave. I made this thread for reasonable discussions over the structure of the Circle. Contribute civilly, or remove yourself.

Do you honestly expect me to believe you wouldn't be tempted and you would NEVER abuse that power?
Yeah right.
You are either lying to me or to yourself. Take a pick.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Auintus wrote...
You realize that you are suggesting that Tempest dosn't really summon a storm, right? Gameplay and lore don't always match up, but often enough, they do. Spells often have visual effects, even in lore.

Yes, when it makes sense.
We can argue if that looks exactly like it does in the game (unlikely), but if you are summoning X (fire) then it makes sense for fire to appear, no?
The same doesn't make sense for all other spells.

Actually, he's right. I meant nuke as in "Blow the town up."
You do
have a valid point though. However, keep in mind that the demon
destroyed(or almost) Redcliffe. That possession never would have occured
had Isolde not feared losing her son, which my Circle would have dealt
with.

Your Circle wouldn't make any difference at all, for no system can guarantee what you are selling.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 03 décembre 2012 - 07:19 .

[Auintus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Do you honestly expect me to believe you wouldn't be tempted and you would NEVER abuse that power?
Yeah right.
You are either lying to me or to yourself. Take a pick.

What power? I (theoritically) won an argument once. There is no power in that.
Were I to have a mage's power, I would certainly use it to my own benefit, but never at the expense of others. That is how I was raised, That is who I am. Believe it or don't.

[Auintus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yes, when it makes sense.
We can argue if that looks exactly like it does in the game (unlikely), but if you are summoning X (fire) then it makes sense for fire to appear, no?
The same doesn't make sense for all other spells.

Which spells have overdone animations?(I haven't played for a while.)

Actually, he's right. I meant nuke as in "Blow the town up."
You do
have a valid point though. However, keep in mind that the demon
destroyed(or almost) Redcliffe. That possession never would have occured
had Isolde not feared losing her son, which my Circle would have dealt
with.

Your Circle wouldn't make any difference at all, for no system can guarantee what you are selling.

Why do you always say that I am guaranteeing perfect success? I never said that it would be perfect and stated the opposite several times.
The difference I would make is removing the fear of selling oneself into a life sentence for the sake of training. Apostates forego that training for their freedom. If the cost of freedom isn't there(or at least very much diminished), there would be no need to avoid that training, hence more mages equip to thwart with demons, hence fewer abominations.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Auintus wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Do you honestly expect me to believe you wouldn't be tempted and you would NEVER abuse that power?
Yeah right.
You are either lying to me or to yourself. Take a pick.

What power? I (theoritically) won an argument once. There is no power in that.
Were I to have a mage's power, I would certainly use it to my own benefit, but never at the expense of others. That is how I was raised, That is who I am. Believe it or don't.

What argument?

And no, I don't believe you.
For "your own benefit" would quickly turn into "expense of others". It would start with small steps, as it always does.

Make me the president of the world. I won't abuse my position. Trust me on that.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Auintus wrote...
Why do you always say that I am guaranteeing perfect success? I never said that it would be perfect and stated the opposite several times.
The difference I would make is removing the fear of selling oneself into a life sentence for the sake of training. Apostates forego that training for their freedom. If the cost of freedom isn't there(or at least very much diminished), there would be no need to avoid that training, hence more mages equip to thwart with demons, hence fewer abominations.

Which would still do nothing to dminish the danger all of those free mages would now pose to anyone.
Which would do nothing to remove all the other reasons a mage has to abuse his power or take risks.

[Auintus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What argument?

And no, I don't believe you.
For "your own benefit" would quickly turn into "expense of others". It would start with small steps, as it always does.

Make me the president of the world. I won't abuse my position. Trust me on that.

The theoretical debate that I won that you said I won and would use that victory against you in other arguments despite the fact that it wouldn't really mean anything.

*shrugs* Believe what you like. No skin off my nose.

[Auintus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Auintus wrote...
Why do you always say that I am guaranteeing perfect success? I never said that it would be perfect and stated the opposite several times.
The difference I would make is removing the fear of selling oneself into a life sentence for the sake of training. Apostates forego that training for their freedom. If the cost of freedom isn't there(or at least very much diminished), there would be no need to avoid that training, hence more mages equip to thwart with demons, hence fewer abominations.

Which would still do nothing to dminish the danger all of those free mages would now pose to anyone.
Which would do nothing to remove all the other reasons a mage has to abuse his power or take risks.

Every free mage is also a chance to make things better, to defend the populace against maleficar who are free anyway.
Trained mages don't take risks under normal circumstances. Pharamond sealed himself in a room in case his jaunt into the Fade went wrong. It did, and the seal worked perfectly.

[Rixatrix]

Auintus wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No, why don't *you* keep quiet?

Gameplay and story segregation is commonly accepted. Gameplay, and thus balance and effects and things made for PLAYER CONVEINIENCE are not considered part of the lore by any sane individual.

I do. When my response amounts to "No, you're wrong." I don't say anything. When I have a valid counter-point, then I respond.

You realize that you are suggesting that Tempest dosn't really summon a storm, right? Gameplay and lore don't always match up, but often enough, they do. Spells often have visual effects, even in lore.

[emphasis added]

+1

Also, it's funny how I get called insane by Lotion for thinking casting Fireball shoots a fireball in Thedas, as shown in the game.  It's not everyday I get called insane, but when I do, I make sure it's on BSN.   In all seriousness, though... If we're going to have a discussion here, we should discuss the topic and arguments and not each other (ad hominem).  Questioning someone's argument = valid.  Questioning someone's sanity = invalid (and in many cases leads to flame wars).  For example, I could say "it is commonly accepted that spells have visual effects, like Stonefist shooting stone, by any sane individual" - but that would be rude, hurtful, and not addressing the vailidity of the argument.

Modifié par BlueMoonSeraphim, 03 décembre 2012 - 08:35 .

[Auintus]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

Also, it's funny how I get called insane by Lotion for thinking casting Fireball shoots a fireball in Thedas, as shown in the game.  It's not everyday I get called insane, but when I do, I make sure it's on BSN.   In all seriousness, though... If we're going to have a discussion here, we should discuss the topic and arguments and not each other (ad hominem).  Questioning someone's argument = valid.  Questioning someone's sanity = invalid (and in many cases leads to flame wars).  For example, I could say "it is commonly accepted that spells have visual effects, like Stonefist shooting stone, by any sane individual" - but that would be rude, hurtful, and not addressing the vailidity of the argument.

You're right. Have to focus on the Circle.
Maybe we'll talk ciriculum next.

[Medhia Nox]

What strains the imagination is why the rich haven't focuses on protecting themselves from mages.

Relying on one organization with a monopoly on all things anti-mage is a really bad idea.

Heck - I'd even start a secular organization offering anti-mage guards to the wealthy.

As a king - I'd have an entire police force of anti-mages - and all non-sanctioned magic will be a kill on site event.

- You have the RIGHT not to use your magic in my kingdom.
- You haev the RIGHT to conduct your business in the same manner as the other 90% of the population.
- You have the RIGHT to understand that you are not special and are not going to be afforded special privaledge.

See - look at all the rights I'd give mages.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 03 décembre 2012 - 09:13 .

[Daerog]

Medhia Nox wrote...

What strains the imagination is why the rich haven't focuses on protecting themselves from mages.

Relying on one organization with a monopoly on all things anti-mage is a really bad idea.

Heck - I'd even start a secular organization offering anti-mage guards to the wealthy.

As a king - I'd have an entire police force of anti-mages - and all non-sanctioned magic will be a kill on site event.

- You have the RIGHT not to use your magic in my kingdom.
- You haev the RIGHT to conduct your business in the same manner as the other 90% of the population.
- You have the RIGHT to understand that you are not special and are not going to be afforded special privaledge.

See - look at all the rights I'd give mages.

Problem is the monopoly on lyrium, hard to make a secular templar order without it. Not sure what the Templars are going to do in DA3, I'm assuming a deal with Kal Sharok and/or the Cartel. Not sure what the Circle is going to do either... I hope there is a main quest to address the issue on supplying lyrium.

[Medhia Nox]

The lyrium is only for control and addiction I believe.

Even so - there's two branches of the Spirit tree that concentrate on anti-magic and any enterprising Lucrosian would jump at a wealthy man paying them to hunt down mages.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 03 décembre 2012 - 09:27 .

[Zardoc]

Circle stays, Mages get some more freedoms, Templars are policed to avoid abuse of power, Chantry made to stop vilifying mages and actually educating the common populace about magic in an objective manner.

There, 99% of all problems mage and templar solved, though the last one might take time and great effort.

Modifié par Zardoc, 03 décembre 2012 - 09:32 .

[Daerog]

Medhia Nox wrote...

The lyrium is only for control and addiction I believe.

Even so - there's two branches of the Spirit tree that concentrate on anti-magic and any enterprising Lucrosian would jump at a wealthy man paying them to hunt down mages.

And for enchantments, magical defense items, stronger spells, and to amplify templar magic resistance.

Of course, I guess if you wanted your own security service or merc squad, you could just hire dwarves from Orzammar or Kal Sharok or dwarves who are first/second/third generation surfacers. I think you would do better selling services of dwarf mercs to guard nobles from magic than other magic users. Lucrosians can be the bounty hunters, though.

You would have quite the enterprise for this conflict, always someone making a profit.

[Daerog]

Zardoc wrote...

Circle stays, Mages get some more freedoms, Templars are policed to avoid abuse of power, Chantry made to stop vilifying mages and actually educating the common populace about magic in an objective manner.

There, 99% of all problems mage and templar solved, though the last one might take time and great effort.

In other words, the Seekers actually do their jobs...

I pretty much agree with this post, although it is very general, it doesn't answer the more complicated questions. Such as, how does the Circle remain autonomous and protected unless it becomes a respected international organization? What gave the Circle credit and protection before was its approval from the Chantry, now that it is separate, what's to stop local lords from claiming Circle Towers? Paying mages to work for them and have the Circle fall apart? How are they, the templars and circle, funded/supplied?

It was pretty easy for the Grey Wardens to be an independent organization that is supported (reluctantly or not) since it was defending the general people, not interfering in politics (for the most part), and made a reasonable treaty during desperate/scary times.

Hard for the templars and circle to do that when their shouting matches turned into a world war. Some serious PR will need to be done to explain to Fred the Farmer why Mark the Mage and Tammy the Templar need to do battle in his backyard.

Spotlight could easily shine on the Chantry in this match, if it decides to set up a third military force for defense purposes for the general populace, to keep Mark and Tammy away from Fred's family. Could have loyalist mages and templars be a part of it...

[brushyourteeth]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

+1

Also, it's funny how I get called insane by Lotion for thinking casting Fireball shoots a fireball in Thedas, as shown in the game.  It's not everyday I get called insane, but when I do, I make sure it's on BSN.   In all seriousness, though... If we're going to have a discussion here, we should discuss the topic and arguments and not each other (ad hominem).  Questioning someone's argument = valid.  Questioning someone's sanity = invalid (and in many cases leads to flame wars).  For example, I could say "it is commonly accepted that spells have visual effects, like Stonefist shooting stone, by any sane individual" - but that would be rude, hurtful, and not addressing the vailidity of the argument.

This just earned my respect forever.  

[Rixatrix]

brushyourteeth wrote...
This just earned my respect forever.  

Thank you!   I love discussions, but don't like bullying.


As for the Circle, I think if you side with the mages, Circles start rebelling all over Thedas (don't remember what happens in the Templar ending).  So, I wonder where it will go from there, let alone what we can all come up with.  Will countries try ejecting their Circles?  Will governments choose sides?  Will mages stick together or go their separate ways?  The templars themselves seemed divided about what to do... so I wonder what their moves would be too?

[Rixatrix]

(double post, please remove)

Modifié par BlueMoonSeraphim, 03 décembre 2012 - 10:42 .

[Auintus]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

As for the Circle, I think if you side with the mages, Circles start rebelling all over Thedas (don't remember what happens in the Templar ending).  So, I wonder where it will go from there, let alone what we can all come up with.  Will countries try ejecting their Circles?  Will governments choose sides?  Will mages stick together or go their separate ways?  The templars themselves seemed divided about what to do... so I wonder what their moves would be too?

In the templar ending, the mages rebel too.The difference is that in the mage ending, they have Hawke's name as proof that the Circles can be defied, while in the templar ending, Hawke is a symbol of templar oppression.

The mages officially rebelled and the templars officially withdrew from the Chantry, but I believe there are still moderates hoping to make peace without too much death.
Tevinter may seek expansion, but I'm not sure about anyone else. The First Warden is up to something in the Anderfels, but I don't know how closely that is tied to the mage/templar conflict.

Modifié par Auintus, 03 décembre 2012 - 10:56 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Auintus wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Which would still do nothing to dminish the danger all of those free mages would now pose to anyone.
Which would do nothing to remove all the other reasons a mage has to abuse his power or take risks.

Every free mage is also a chance to make things better, to defend the populace against maleficar who are free anyway.
Trained mages don't take risks under normal circumstances. Pharamond sealed himself in a room in case his jaunt into the Fade went wrong. It did, and the seal worked perfectly.

No. Free mages are far more trouble than they are worth.
All the other reasons don't go away and don't happen only in a sealed room. and if a mage decides to spend all of his time in a sealed room, why leave the circle in the first place?

[Lotion Soronarr]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

Also, it's funny how I get called insane by Lotion for thinking casting Fireball shoots a fireball in Thedas, as shown in the game. 

It would be funny if that was what I said...but it's not.
Nice strawman b.t.w.

Questioning someone's argument = valid.  Questioning someone's sanity = invalid.
For example, I could say "it is commonly accepted that spells have visual effects, like Stonefist shooting stone, by any sane individual" - but that would be rude, hurtful, and not addressing the vailidity of the argument.

Grow a thicker skin, that's all I can tell you.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Medhia Nox wrote...

The lyrium is only for control and addiction I believe.

Even so - there's two branches of the Spirit tree that concentrate on anti-magic and any enterprising Lucrosian would jump at a wealthy man paying them to hunt down mages.

No, it's been confirmed that lyrium does indeed give templars their powers.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Zardoc wrote...

Circle stays, Mages get some more freedoms, Templars are policed to avoid abuse of power, Chantry made to stop vilifying mages and actually educating the common populace about magic in an objective manner.

There, 99% of all problems mage and templar solved, though the last one might take time and great effort.

The Chantry is not villifying mages any more than necessary. They are objective in that regard.
The only real change should be more seekers.
The only thing mages should get is a kick in the nads.