271 réponses à ce sujet

[Auintus]

Vandicus wrote...
No argument or counter-argument can be made.

Then you keep quiet. Most every spell has a very visible effect. What's missing is the fact that Blood Slave, which has a visible effect, is a hostile takeover. Complete control. Idunna uses the subtler, more dangerous type of blood magic. We aren't allowed to use that, nor would it be very useful in an open battle.

[TCBC_Freak]

Auintus wrote...

TCBC_Freak wrote...

You just gave an example of a mage that became an abomination just because... Corypheus. He became one just because he wanted power and thought he was more powerful than the maker.

Or maybe you define "just because" wrong. "Just because," means that it happens without the person meaning for it to. Which now that I think about it, is most of the list you gave. You found examples of people who became abominations not because they want to, but "just because" it happens as a result of reaching beyond your grasp.

Corypheus is a darkspawn. He was corrupted by the Black City, not demons.

I define "just because" as "for s***s and giggles." Not an accident.

True about Corypheus, my bad.

And that's good you define it that way, but how does grimkillah mean it? Because most people say it to mean that it wasn't what was intended to happen when doing something simple or doing something for no reason. For example, the summoning ritual in the Cricle Tower in DA:O. I did it just because and I summoned a freaking demon bear. My bad.

[Auintus]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

The pro-mage folks want one thing, mage domination. As someone who thought of himself as pro-mage for years since DA:O came out; It kind of pains me to see it become what it is. They will not accept any idea of a new Circle because they want total freedom and no regulation involving mundanes, no matter how lax. It all comes down to, "let mages police themselves, keep humans out of it and if humans end up suffering, too bad because mages have suffered for years so lets not worry that it might lead to that." You could suggest that the Circle be dissolved and reformed as a voluntary school and the Templar work solely to guard the voluntary school and respond to rumors of blood mages and abominations; and the new pro-mage group that has risen up would claim that that wont do because you can't trust the Templar because they are all bigots that would abuse the people who came to the school and the new Circle has the potential to become the same as the one that exists now (because speculating about the future is fine for their side). You know how I know even an idea like this will be rejected? Because I saw it get suggested and ripped apart as "no better" than the current system. I've slowly over the past year and more quickly over the past few weeks seen that I am pro-Templar, because they are willing to work with ideas that end up limiting the Templar power and they are willing to admit that both sides are at fault for what's happened while the pro-mages are content to blame the Templar for all the problems.

Perhaps you are dealing with the extremists then. Not something you want to do for either side.
I want equality. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less. Most templars can be trusted. Look at Gregoire, look at (da2) Cullen. Most mages can be trusted too. Look at all those who fought in Broken Circle.
Most pro-templars I've...argued is such a harsh term...with have been no more yielding than I and insist, much like you, that mages and their supporters want domination. That is inaccurate.

[Auintus]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

True about Corypheus, my bad.

And that's good you define it that way, but how does grimkillah mean it? Because most people say it to mean that it wasn't what was intended to happen when doing something simple or doing something for no reason. For example, the summoning ritual in the Cricle Tower in DA:O. I did it just because and I summoned a freaking demon bear. My bad.

I'm not certain, I only assume he means it the same way I do.
And at least you deal with the demon bear right away, the trickster whim runs off and kills innocents. But you undertake Summoning Sciences rather light-heartedly. Pharamond has the presence of mind to keep his summoning contained.

[TCBC_Freak]

Auintus wrote...

Perhaps you are dealing with the extremists then. Not something you want to do for either side.
I want equality. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less. Most templars can be trusted. Look at Gregoire, look at (da2) Cullen. Most mages can be trusted too. Look at all those who fought in Broken Circle.
Most pro-templars I've...argued is such a harsh term...with have been no more yielding than I and insist, much like you, that mages and their supporters want domination. That is inaccurate.

But how do you define equality (this isn't a theme for me, asking for people to define things, lol, it's just happened a lot today)? I ask because the state of affairs in the DA world mean that mages live unequally to the common person, not in the negative, but in the positive. Even weighted that they "can" be abused, so can the common person by the nobility and I'd wager it happens in about the same percentile, at least with what we see in game. Mean while, the average person fights just to eat every day, mages have a roof over their head and warm food, and protection from wars between nations and raiding bandits and darkspawn. Any common person would kill to live in the tower I'd bet and be thankful. I'm not saying it doesn't need to be examined and tweaked. But it's not the evil prison it gets painted as. The mages have a leaned view because they are treated above the common person and live like the nobles who abuse the commoners and then go to war for no reason. Which is how what the mages are doing is seen, more noble fighting over petty things while the commoners fight and die.

Modifié par TCBC_Freak, 03 décembre 2012 - 02:14 .

[TCBC_Freak]

Auintus wrote...

TCBC_Freak wrote...

True about Corypheus, my bad.

And that's good you define it that way, but how does grimkillah mean it? Because most people say it to mean that it wasn't what was intended to happen when doing something simple or doing something for no reason. For example, the summoning ritual in the Cricle Tower in DA:O. I did it just because and I summoned a freaking demon bear. My bad.

I'm not certain, I only assume he means it the same way I do.
And at least you deal with the demon bear right away, the trickster whim runs off and kills innocents. But you undertake Summoning Sciences rather light-heartedly. Pharamond has the presence of mind to keep his summoning contained.

That's because my character wasn't a mage, I was just exploring; which is funny that a non-mage could activate something a mage did, magic is devious and even the most dangerous (summoning magic...) is not confined to mages it seems, even mundanes can finish something a mage starts. My mage character didn't do the sub-quest, because he respected what might happen; that's role-playing baby. lol

Modifié par TCBC_Freak, 03 décembre 2012 - 02:12 .

[Auintus]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

That's because my character wasn't a mage, I was just exploring; which is funny that a non-mage could activate something a mage did, magic is devious and even the most dangerous (summoning magic...) is not confined to mages it seems, even mundanes can finish something a mage starts. My mage character didn't do the sub-quest, because he respected what might happen; that's role-playing baby. lol

Huh, I always consider it a game when it comes to stuff like that. Dialogue and big quests I take seriously, but something like that is "Hey! Quest!"

[DarkSpiral]

For some strange reason, I read this thread with the assumption the topic referred to the dialogue circle.

The OP had a disturbing tendency to phrase posts in a manner that infers s/he is actually a mage in Thedas. Other posters in this (and far to many other) threads treat this subject with the same level of gravitas that one should treat real-life interment camps. Or at least it is communicated as such from the way they phrase these things.

Honestly, friends, this is only a game. The fate of the Circle is in the hands of the writers of the game. The game may serve as a vehicle for examining the state of the world as it is at the time of the game's production, but it doesn't deserve the kind of examination that genuine inequality in the real world does.

I suppose this is a thread derailment. But I feel it is important to step back and remember that none of the people, places, or events in any past or future Dragon Age game are real in any meaningful way.

[Auintus]

DarkSpiral wrote...

For some strange reason, I read this thread with the assumption the topic referred to the dialogue circle.

The OP had a disturbing tendency to phrase posts in a manner that infers s/he is actually a mage in Thedas. Other posters in this (and far to many other) threads treat this subject with the same level of gravitas that one should treat real-life interment camps. Or at least it is communicated as such from the way they phrase these things.

Honestly, friends, this is only a game. The fate of the Circle is in the hands of the writers of the game. The game may serve as a vehicle for examining the state of the world as it is at the time of the game's production, but it doesn't deserve the kind of examination that genuine inequality in the real world does.

I suppose this is a thread derailment. But I feel it is important to step back and remember that none of the people, places, or events in any past or future Dragon Age game are real in any meaningful way.

"Disturbing"? What'd I do to deserve that?
I know it's a game. Nothing accomplished in-game will mean anything in reality. It's the principle of the thing. Judging an individual based on birth, on capability.

[TCBC_Freak]

DarkSpiral wrote...

For some strange reason, I read this thread with the assumption the topic referred to the dialogue circle.

The OP had a disturbing tendency to phrase posts in a manner that infers s/he is actually a mage in Thedas. Other posters in this (and far to many other) threads treat this subject with the same level of gravitas that one should treat real-life interment camps. Or at least it is communicated as such from the way they phrase these things.

Honestly, friends, this is only a game. The fate of the Circle is in the hands of the writers of the game. The game may serve as a vehicle for examining the state of the world as it is at the time of the game's production, but it doesn't deserve the kind of examination that genuine inequality in the real world does.

I suppose this is a thread derailment. But I feel it is important to step back and remember that none of the people, places, or events in any past or future Dragon Age game are real in any meaningful way.

Unless you believe in the Multiverse Theory (the one that states that every idea and created fictional world comes into being in a new universe, as opposed to the one which states that every choice we come to is chosen in a splitting strand of time), which some people honestly do. Also, some people may think that the way we view what happens in this fictional world is telling of our mindset as to the real world problems that parallel this issue and they want to help educate and maybe even change a person's mind about the real world issue by doing so in this fictional issue... just some thoughts.

Edit: Such as Auintus said right above me, who I respect more than most on the forums.

Modifié par TCBC_Freak, 03 décembre 2012 - 02:31 .

[Rixatrix]

DarkSpiral wrote...
disturbing tendency

Actually, Auintus seems to be one of the more polite and level-headed posters here, imho.

We all know it's a game.  Clearly, it's just fun to discuss!  No need to assume the worst.

Modifié par BlueMoonSeraphim, 04 décembre 2012 - 03:17 .

[Daerog]

It is fun to engross one's self into a mythos or legendarium.

Also, about the way some people like using fictional world settings to explore real world situations, the mage situation is really stretching it. As too much magical mayhem can tear the Veil, thus allowing other dimensional beings through. I can't think of a real world equivalent to that situation, other than nuclear fallout, but no creatures from another plane can invade in such a situation.

Anyway, to the topic at hand, I can only imagine two reasonable outcomes. Nations get their own mage training organizations or another international organization is formed to keep the training and governing of mages independent from national politics. As the Chantry is the only respected international organization and the distrust of neighboring nations may keep another international organization from being formed, the former seems more likely than the latter, which could be bad if a national leader becomes too corrupt (o rly?) and decides to use mages for war or irresponsible experiments.

[DarkSpiral]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

DarkSpiral wrote...
disturbing tendency

Actually, Aiuntus seems to be one of the more polite and level-headed posters here, imho.

We all know it's a game.  Clearly, it's just fun to discuss!  No need to assume the worst.

I didn't say he was rude or bombastic, though, did I?  No, I didn't.  And frankly there have been a great number of threads on this subject where there was significant doubt that the posters involved were doing it just for fun, and were actually taking it as seriously as life and death.

They weren't this thread, and possibly none of these posters, I'll admit that.

So...in the hope that the thread does not becaome such a discussion, I'll add something more a bit on topic.

OP: your setup of the Circle strikes me as being a "best case" scenario, within the structure of the game's lore (by that I mean the fact htat mages aren't simply an oppressed minorty, but actually ARE in danger of falling to demonic possession and becoming abominations).

Thye chance that such a system would ever come inot being would be jarring to me, given the centuries of animosity that has built between the mages and (more or less) anyone that is not a mage.  Commoners are taught ot fear magic by the Chantry, Templars are taught to watch for any sign of corrupption and act without hesitiation, for the greater good.  The system breeds an attitude that not merely allows people like Karras (DA2) to flourish, but far worse, people like Meredith.

The corruption of he rmind by the lyrium idol might have made her worse, but it didn't create her attitude towards mages from whole cloth.  It merely aggravated it.

So, the point of all that being, can a reformation model as you are suggesting even be possible?  In my mind, tearing the whole thing down and starting over is the most likely thing to have any chance at sucess.

[Auintus]

DarkSpiral wrote...

So...in the hope that the thread does not becaome such a discussion, I'll add something more a bit on topic.

OP: your setup of the Circle strikes me as being a "best case" scenario, within the structure of the game's lore (by that I mean the fact htat mages aren't simply an oppressed minorty, but actually ARE in danger of falling to demonic possession and becoming abominations).

Thye chance that such a system would ever come inot being would be jarring to me, given the centuries of animosity that has built between the mages and (more or less) anyone that is not a mage.  Commoners are taught ot fear magic by the Chantry, Templars are taught to watch for any sign of corrupption and act without hesitiation, for the greater good.  The system breeds an attitude that not merely allows people like Karras (DA2) to flourish, but far worse, people like Meredith.

The corruption of he rmind by the lyrium idol might have made her worse, but it didn't create her attitude towards mages from whole cloth.  It merely aggravated it.

So, the point of all that being, can a reformation model as you are suggesting even be possible?  In my mind, tearing the whole thing down and starting over is the most likely thing to have any chance at sucess.

I'd still like to know where your "disturbing tendency to phrase posts in a manner that infers s/he is actually a mage in Thedas." comes from. The "disturbing" part mostly.

Mages are actively sought by demons as hosts and demons are capable of disguising attempts at possession. The mage has to agree, but the demon doesn't outright say that they will be possessed. Mages must be taught to recognize demons and regard their every word with suspicion. In addition, there was an apprentice in the Circle that lost control of a stream of fire. His instructor was working on improving his control. Magic is dangerous in untrained hands, but have you ever seen a trained mage backfire? Training is necessary.
You are quite correct in that regard. The shift in general opinion of mages would be a slow process, but I believe several systems suggested here had a way for mages to earn the trust of the populace.
If I recall, Meredith's sister was a mage that became an abomination. Such a biased individual should probably not be put in charge of a Circle.
As of the end of Asunder,(spoiler alert) the Circles have seperated themselves from the Chantry. The perfect catalyst for a new system.

[DarkSpiral]

[quote]Auintus wrote...

I'd still like to know where your "disturbing tendency to phrase posts in a manner that infers s/he is actually a mage in Thedas." comes from. The "disturbing" part mostly.
[/quote]

*I* was disturbed by what I read as posts that were at least IC, and delusionsal at worst.  I didn't really think you were suggesting you were a mage, but the use of IC in a OOC forum bothers me.  I seem to have misinterpreted that.  Sorry.

[quote] 

You are quite correct in that regard. The shift in general opinion of mages would be a slow process, but I believe several systems suggested here had a way for mages to earn the trust of the populace.
If I recall, Meredith's sister was a mage that became an abomination. Such a biased individual should probably not be put in charge of a Circle.
[/quote]

Indeed, I can't disagree with that.  I can't see why anyone WOULD disagree, save for people that think magic is inherently evil (rather than just blood magic being evil), which a is an opinion a fair number of characters in the DA games have indeed  expressed.

The trust of the populace is actually of less importance than you seem to be suggesting (not that its UNimportant, just not the first priority).  The first order of business is changing the Chantry's teachings.  Divine Justina seems inclined (or DID, prior to the revolt of the Circles) to reformation.  Whether she can pull it off remains to be seen.  Who knows, that might be something that is rolled into DA3's story.

[/quote]
As of the end of Asunder,(spoiler alert) the Circles have seperated themselves from the Chantry. The perfect catalyst for a new system.
[/quote]

I would say that the catalyst for a new system hasn't happened yet, actually.  Currently the vast majority of Thedas is embroiled in the Mage/Templar war.  There is no chance for a new system in that situation.  The outcome of that war, on the other hand, will provide the catalyst for a new system.

[Auintus]

DarkSpiral wrote...

*I* was disturbed by what I read as posts that were at least IC, and delusionsal at worst.  I didn't really think you were suggesting you were a mage, but the use of IC in a OOC forum bothers me.  I seem to have misinterpreted that.  Sorry.

I'd like to know what I did wrong exactly. Would hate for these misunderstandings to happen again.
No need to be sorry. I think the word "disturbed" just caught me a bit.
Wait a minute, they have in-character forums? That's either really sad, or hilarious.

 
Indeed, I can't disagree with that.  I can't see why anyone WOULD disagree, save for people that think magic is inherently evil (rather than just blood magic being evil), which a is an opinion a fair number of characters in the DA games have indeed  expressed.

The trust of the populace is actually of less importance than you seem to be suggesting (not that its UNimportant, just not the first priority).  The first order of business is changing the Chantry's teachings.  Divine Justina seems inclined (or DID, prior to the revolt of the Circles) to reformation.  Whether she can pull it off remains to be seen.  Who knows, that might be something that is rolled into DA3's story.

Despite the fact that I see blood magic as just another tool(a very dangerous tool that should be treated like a nuke) and not evil in and of itself, we are in agreement here.

I would say that the catalyst for a new system hasn't happened yet, actually.  Currently the vast majority of Thedas is embroiled in the Mage/Templar war.  There is no chance for a new system in that situation.  The outcome of that war, on the other hand, will provide the catalyst for a new system.

The destruction of the old Circle will allow a new one to rise from its ashes. Though, you are right, that will only occur once the war is ended.

Modifié par Auintus, 03 décembre 2012 - 05:25 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Auintus wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nope.
It doesn't amount to same.
You assume mages have some super-secreat way of detecting and tracking mages.

A blood mage can hide easily, a regular mage can't track him easily.
And it's still too big a cost to pay to move to a reactive system.[/quote]

Uh...phalacteries? Something that is already practiced and proven rather effective?[/quote]

Useless.
How do you know which mage did what (and thus, which plachyietry to use)? How do you even know it was a mage that did a crime?
And what about apostates?



[quote]
I never demanded perfection. But I highly doubt that a mage can nuke a town on accident.[/quote]

Yes they can. We seen it happen.





[quote]
Even you treat mages as a threat by their very existence. Is it any wonder that they eventually decide to become that monster? Here [/qutoe]

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



[quote][quote]
Your belief is naive. Not the good and bad part, but the idea tha good and bad and somehow constant.
There are MOSTLY good and MOSTLY bad people...more or less.
But even good people can do bad things nad even bad people can do good things.

The tempations a mage faces are MUCH greater than that a mundane faces.
Hell, if you had the power to convince me you are right an win this debate, dont' tell me you wouldn't be tempted as hell to use it on me each time I post. And maybe you would resist temptation the first few times. but nothing is eternal or forever. Just like the passage of time, the sand carried by the wind or the rain erodes even the strongest rock, so does willpower erode the more it is tempted.
[/quote]

There isn't even mostly good or mostly bad. Good and bad are words that we use to express personal opinions of something. Even morality is just a set of decision-making principles. No two people see the world in the exact same way. Each individual has their own set of principles. A "good" person doing "bad" things is just you approving of one action and disapproving of another.

 I don't think anyone has that kind of power.
Why would I be tempted to do that? Unless it were over the same topic and you had already conceded the exact same point, but that would just be to show you that you had agreed before. How could I "use" something like that anyway? There wouldn't be a point.
[/quote]

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

[Lotion Soronarr]

Auintus wrote...

Vandicus wrote...
No argument or counter-argument can be made.

Then you keep quiet. Most every spell has a very visible effect. What's missing is the fact that Blood Slave, which has a visible effect, is a hostile takeover. Complete control. Idunna uses the subtler, more dangerous type of blood magic. We aren't allowed to use that, nor would it be very useful in an open battle.

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.

[DarkSpiral]

Auintus wrote...

I'd like to know what I did wrong exactly. Would hate for these misunderstandings to happen again.
No need to be sorry. I think the word "disturbed" just caught me a bit.
Wait a minute, they have in-character forums? That's either really sad, or hilarious.

Don't worry about it, I jumped to conclusions.
Yes, they do.  And perhaps a bit of both?

 
Despite the fact that I see blood magic as just another tool(a very dangerous tool that should be treated like a nuke) and not evil in and of itself, we are in agreement here.

I was actually thinking about hwo people in Thedas view blood magic.  Bu tyes, there is evidence (Merrill) to suggest that blood magic in and of itself is not akin to the Dark Side of The Force in Star Wars, where drawing power from it inevitably corrupts you.

Lotion Soronnar wrote

I never demanded perfection. But I highly doubt that a mage can nuke a town on accident.

Yes they can. We seen it happen.

We've seen a mage nuke a town on accident?

Where?  When?  Who?  Anders most deinetly did NOT destroy the Kirkwall Chantry on accident, if that what was on your mind.

[Patchwork]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote

I never demanded perfection. But I highly doubt that a mage can nuke a town on accident.[/quote]

Yes they can. We seen it happen.[/quote]
[quote]
We've seen a mage nuke a town on accident?

Where?  When?  Who?  Anders most deinetly did NOT destroy the Kirkwall Chantry on accident, if that what was on your mind.

[/quote]

I assume they mean Connor and Redcliffe.


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

Modifié par Ser Bard, 03 décembre 2012 - 12:29 .

[DarkSpiral]

Ser Bard wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote

I never demanded perfection. But I highly doubt that a mage can nuke a town on accident.

Yes they can. We seen it happen.

We've seen a mage nuke a town on accident?

Where?  When?  Who?  Anders most deinetly did NOT destroy the Kirkwall Chantry on accident, if that what was on your mind.

I assume they mean Connor and Redcliffe.


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

I hope they didn't, becauss Connor did nothing of the sort.  He got possessed by a demon, and the demon raised an undead army that besieged Redcliffe.  Connor did not blow the town to hell (which would actually fit the definition of "nuke") on accident., nor on purpose.

The visibility of blood magic mind control could be in question, as we've seen blood mages use it without any outward signs.  My rule of thumb is that until we see something that contradicts the idea, spells actually look like they do in combat.

Modifié par DarkSpiral, 03 décembre 2012 - 12:43 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

DarkSpiral wrote...
I hope they didn't, becauss Connor did nothing of the sort.  He got possessed by a demon, and the demon raised an undead army that besieged Redcliffe.  Connor did not blow the town to hell (which would actually fit the definition of "nuke") on accident., nor on purpose.

So when you loose an argument you fall back to nitpicking and word definitions?

You know very well what was meant by "nuke" - destroying a town.
It is irrelevant if the town was destroyed by a huge explosion or by an army of undead or by massive mind control.
Either way, a single mage destroys an entire town.

The visibility of blood magic mind control could be in question, as we've seen blood mages use it without any outward signs.  My rule of thumb is that until we see something that contradicts the idea, spells actually look like they do in combat.

Your rule of thumb is inferior to the commonly accepted and far more sensible gamepaly/story segregation rule.

I will apply your logic to swordplay - that means sworplay in Thedas looks EXACTLY like how we see it in-game. The same two or three swings..over and over again.

[Auintus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Useless.
How do you know which mage did what (and thus, which plachyietry to use)? How do you even know it was a mage that did a crime?
And what about apostates?

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

I never demanded perfection. But I highly doubt that a mage can nuke a town on accident.

Yes they can. We seen it happen.

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

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."

There isn't even mostly good or mostly bad. Good and bad are words that we use to express personal opinions of something. Even morality is just a set of decision-making principles. No two people see the world in the exact same way. Each individual has their own set of principles. A "good" person doing "bad" things is just you approving of one action and disapproving of another.

 I don't think anyone has that kind of power.
Why would I be tempted to do that? Unless it were over the same topic and you had already conceded the exact same point, but that would just be to show you that you had agreed before. How could I "use" something like that anyway? There wouldn't be a point.

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.

[Auintus]

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.

[Auintus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So when you loose an argument you fall back to nitpicking and word definitions?

You know very well what was meant by "nuke" - destroying a town.
It is irrelevant if the town was destroyed by a huge explosion or by an army of undead or by massive mind control.
Either way, a single mage destroys an entire town.

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 rule of thumb is inferior to the commonly accepted and far more sensible gamepaly/story segregation rule.

I will apply your logic to swordplay - that means sworplay in Thedas looks EXACTLY like how we see it in-game. The same two or three swings..over and over again.

Again with the insults. It's funny how you ignore that same manner of debate when I apply it to your arguments.

Modifié par Auintus, 03 décembre 2012 - 06:35 .