230 réponses à ce sujet

[Medhia Nox]

Well - my mage will be heading the Inquisition just fine. I support reform - NOT rebellion. The rebelling mages who were stupid enough to jump on board with the Libertarians now need to be brought to heel.

As for a "neutral" mage - I wouldn't know what kind of Lucrosian WOULD take sides. There's no profit in being a zealot. I'd make a Lucrosian mage who basically tried to play all sides to maximum profit (though I don't see this fitting into Bioware's usual storytelling)

The Mage Rebellion mage will just be the "common" mage player. ((Just like the Templar Warrior player will be the "common" Anti-Mage player)).

It's funny how people want "grey" - but these polar opposites are extremely black and white and people flood them with their banality.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 24 décembre 2012 - 09:49 .

[Wulfram]

Being neutral may be pretty difficult. I mean, that was the what Anders wanted, really - to remove the chance of compromise.

The Templars aren't going to trust mages to just sit comfortably in circles - at best, the rump Circles of tame mages would be more openly and blatantly prisons, which wouldn't leave a lot of room for money making. At worst, they'd see the most practical option as being to kill or Tranquil any mages they get their hands on.

Just hiding may still be pretty doable, I guess.

[Althix]

I don't want to cite Cullen about the mages, or Wynne.
But mage can not be neutral. As a mage you either submit your self to the Chantry or you will fight for your freedom (which is also includes usage of blood magic).

There is no such thing as sanctioned psyker, or sanctioned mage to be correct, in DA setting. There is only two outcomes for mages - be always caged and be on the leash. Or to become Apostate - which means not healthy relationships with Chantry, which also cause death to mages in one way or another.

I don't think Bioware is gonna make special walkthrough for mages (i mean entire walkthrough, not some side quests like it was in DA:O).

So i really hope that =I= is a 3rd party Organisation.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 24 décembre 2012 - 10:10 .

[Fredward]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Why?

because we will play a default character, Warrior Inquisitor, Rogue Inquisitor or Mage Inquisitor, the same character only with different classes to choose.

They say there will be background, but it will be the same like Hawke.

Lol no. They're not making DA2.02. They're making DA: Inquisitor. Just because you seem to hate the mage implementation in DA2 with the flaming white hot heat of ten thousand supernovas doesn't mean it's gonna be exactly the same in DAI. Assuming that, when you know NOTHING about the game, is just silly.

[nightscrawl]

Nizaris, I thought you were "done with Dragon Age." >.>

secretsandlies wrote...

As a mage you either submit your self to the Chantry or you will fight for your freedom (which is also includes usage of blood magic).

Speak for your own mages.

I have never made a blood mage, and I never will make one. Mages don't have to use blood magic, and mages can still think the current system is broken while not supporting the use of blood magic.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 24 décembre 2012 - 10:54 .

[Dr. Doctor]

secretsandlies wrote...
There is no such thing as sanctioned psyker, or sanctioned mage to be correct, in DA setting. There is only two outcomes for mages - be always caged and be on the leash. Or to become Apostate - which means not healthy relationships with Chantry, which also cause death to mages in one way or another.

So i really hope that =I= is a 3rd party Organisation.

Maybe a sanctioning process would be a viable option for the Circle. The Harrowing works pretty well in weeding out mages who would succumb to demonic possession, and Circle training ensures that mages know how to safely use their powers. In the case of Warhammer 40k, Sanctioned Psykers are then placed into Imperial services like the Inquisition, Imperial Guard, or Astrotelepatc communications choirs.

[Nerevar-as]

nightscrawl wrote...

Nizaris, I thought you were "done with Dragon Age." >.>

secretsandlies wrote...

As a mage you either submit your self to the Chantry or you will fight for your freedom (which is also includes usage of blood magic).

Speak for your own mages.

I have never made a blood mage, and I never will make one. Mages don't have to use blood magic, and mages can still think the current system is broken while not supporting the use of blood magic.

Yeah, you don´t have to use BM. Even if you do, you could still limit yourself to use your own blood and ignore the mind control and using others to power up yourself. But I agree that a rebel mage doesn´t need to resort to BM and still want a different system. From a gameplay perspective it isn´t worth much either, besides using HP for MAna you can get most other effects out of the other schools.

If/when I play as a mage in DA2 I´ll avoid BM. The Warden I´ve just started, however, will decide that using BM on herself for extra mana and against DS is justified, despite of having ratted Jowan for suspecting he was a BM himself. Although I wonder how it would be to work for the Chnatry and be a BM. Wouldn´t put the Chnatry in a good light if made public, or you could work as a Trojan horse to bring it down.

[d4eaming]

Your inability to imagine a scenario in which a mage Inquisitor is justified is entirely a failing of your imagination. No one elses. You can complain all you want, but you have been shown repeatedly that your premise is wrong and that other people can perfectly justify their positions. You're like a twelve year old screaming "nuh uh!" when someone explains why you're wrong. Shoving your fingers in your ears and going LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU does not make anyone else wrong. Just because you don't have the imagination enough to figure out a plausable reason for mage Hawke or a mage Inquisitor doesn't make the lore broken or illogical.

You outright refuse to accept anyone else's suggestions. You are wrong. Get over it.

[d4eaming]

Nizaris1 wrote...

"i remove the chance to compromise because there is no compromise" - Anders

So by means DA3 world is a world with no compromise

How come there is a compromise that making Mage Inquisitor?

Anders is talking about factions, not individuals. Individuals can make their own compromises, including a mage Hawke and a mage Inquisitor. They are always the outlier of the situation.

Also, gameplay and story segregation. Go research it.

[d4eaming]

I don't care about your annoying screen caps. I know what Anders said, my canon Hawke killed him for it too.

[d4eaming]

Also, Anders is mentally unstable. It is his opinion only that there can be no compromise. ANDERS, the character, will accept no compromise. That does not mean that the factions cannot actually, of their own volition, come to a compromise. A flawed character's opinion is not a fact.

Modifié par d4eaming, 25 décembre 2012 - 01:11 .

[d4eaming]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Anders is talking about factions, not individuals. Individuals can make their own compromises, including a mage Hawke and a mage Inquisitor. They are always the outlier of the situation.

That is the point, so there will be no compromise that can lead to the existence of Mage Inquisitor

A mage inquisitor, of their own volition, can choose to compromise. There ARE mages that believe the circles are good.

Anders word is not god. What he says is not a binding fact.

[d4eaming]

Nizaris1 wrote...

No, what he did is to remove the chance of compromise

That is what he thinks will happen. We don't actually know if that is true.

[d4eaming]

Nizaris1 wrote...

you don't understand, it is not about Anders word, it is about what he did, what he did is remove the chance of compromise, because there is NO COMPROMISE

surely you don't understand the game

Lol. I think I understand it better than you do.

Anyone can claim no compromise. ANYONE can claim that the two factions cannot come to some kind of agreement, but our character in DA3 may very well break that notion.

You know no more about DA3 than I do, yet you've conjured up all this hullabloo about what it's about and what its characters are about and how it will end and whether or not a mage will be "logical", but if you applied some of that fantasy to the actual DA2 game itself, you would not be so confused.

[Nerevar-as]

I really hope we don´t get the to the point we wonder why on earth the Chantry would still employ the PC.

[d4eaming]

Maybe our inquisitor will have the option to break the chantry further? Or conquer the mages. Who knows. I'm open to either possibility, and I have no problem making characters that can take both sides. My warrior Hawke sided with the Templars on my first play, and my mage Hawke sided with the mages. I currently have a bloodmage Hawke who's kind of leaning toward Templar support, because he's a bit of a hypocrite for one, and for two thinks he's one of the few people capable of not being corrupted by blood magic. Sensible mages that aren't hurting people go free, and he's nice to kind Templars, but crazy mages that hurt people and Templars that abuse mages get put down. And I can logically account for each of them with no problem.

I can come up with disparate Shepards as well. My current canon one is mostly paragon who takes renegade options when it's opportune to do so. I'll find a renegade one later, I'm sure.

Main thing it comes down to is accepting the premise, working within its framework, and using some creativity to fit your character in it. I've never had a problem doing so.

Modifié par d4eaming, 25 décembre 2012 - 01:42 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't see other possibilitis, whether Inquisitor is from the Chantry or not, still Mage Inquisitor cannot fit the job out of sentiment

I can.

[lil yonce]

d4eaming wrote...

Also, Anders is mentally unstable. It is his opinion only that there can be no compromise. ANDERS, the character, will accept no compromise. That does not mean that the factions cannot actually, of their own volition, come to a compromise. A flawed character's opinion is not a fact.

Exactly. It's just Anders' opinion. The Chantry has real potential to relinquish its historical attitude toward mages under Divine Justinia V. She was adamant about Circle reform and greater mage respect throughout Asunder. You could argue her liberalism caused the schism. In any event, everyone against her "Mage Agenda" has abandoned the Chantry, and now is the opportune time to remake the church-- its theology and values regarding mages. I think a mage Inquisitor is a step toward progress she wants to make. It's not inexplicable. I don't see her having much of a problem with it.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 25 décembre 2012 - 01:53 .

[d4eaming]

Ummm, it has already been established that Varric is an unreliable narrator.

I doubt there will be any retroactive continuity changes just because you personally can't imagine a scenario in which the PC could be a mage.