587 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

During Blights. Which no one though it was.

I just finished Ostagar yesterday. There were two soldiers having their own conversation that went like this.

"We've won every battle, but there are more of them each time!"
"Maybe those grey wardens are right about this being a blight."
"Maker, I hope not."
"Sounds like a good time to get drunk if you ask me."

They knew it was larger than a regular darkspawn raid. Soldiers were even beginning to believe the Grey Wardens.

[MisterJB]

How many mages were even volunteering to go fight the blight-spreading, flesh-eating hellspawn, anyway?
Some far sigthed ones like Wynne might see it as an opportunity to do some political pulling but, overral, I doubt many were willing to go.

Modifié par MisterJB, 10 janvier 2013 - 03:57 .

[Dr. Doctor]

My question is how the Templars intend to contain a rapidly growing mage population. I mean putting large amounts of magic users up in a tower for the rest of their lives without anything to do seems like a powder keg waiting to go off.

Even in the case of the Warhammer 40k universe psykers (their version of mages) are trained and then put through a sanctioning process that makes sure they can't be easily possessed by demons before they're placed into Imperial service.

[Lotion Soronarr]

dragonflight288 wrote...

During Blights. Which no one though it was.

I just finished Ostagar yesterday. There were two soldiers having their own conversation that went like this.

"We've won every battle, but there are more of them each time!"
"Maybe those grey wardens are right about this being a blight."
"Maker, I hope not."
"Sounds like a good time to get drunk if you ask me."

They knew it was larger than a regular darkspawn raid. Soldiers were even beginning to believe the Grey Wardens.

Yeah and all the offficers you talk to are like:

"This is a good defensive position. Our victory is assured."

[Lotion Soronarr]

Dr. Doctor wrote...

My question is how the Templars intend to contain a rapidly growing mage population. I mean putting large amounts of magic users up in a tower for the rest of their lives without anything to do seems like a powder keg waiting to go off.

How rapidly growing?
Mages are still incredibly rare.

Even in the case of the Warhammer 40k universe psykers (their version of mages) are trained and then put through a sanctioning process that makes sure they can't be easily possessed by demons before they're placed into Imperial service.

Aqti-demnon wards, psychic hoods and soul-stripping doesn't exist in DA uiniverse.
And even with all those precautions psykers STILL fall (and then the entire planet suffers)

[Lazy Jer]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

I just finished Ostagar yesterday. There were two soldiers having their own conversation that went like this.

"We've won every battle, but there are more of them each time!"
"Maybe those grey wardens are right about this being a blight."
"Maker, I hope not."
"Sounds like a good time to get drunk if you ask me."

They knew it was larger than a regular darkspawn raid. Soldiers were even beginning to believe the Grey Wardens.

Yeah and all the offficers you talk to are like:

"This is a good defensive position. Our victory is assured."

Well it might have been if a certain Mr. Loghain bothered to show up on the battlefield.  But then that's off topic.

[dragonflight288]

Lazy Jer wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

I just finished Ostagar yesterday. There were two soldiers having their own conversation that went like this.

"We've won every battle, but there are more of them each time!"
"Maybe those grey wardens are right about this being a blight."
"Maker, I hope not."
"Sounds like a good time to get drunk if you ask me."

They knew it was larger than a regular darkspawn raid. Soldiers were even beginning to believe the Grey Wardens.

Yeah and all the offficers you talk to are like:

"This is a good defensive position. Our victory is assured."

Well it might have been if a certain Mr. Loghain bothered to show up on the battlefield.  But then that's off topic.

It also didn't help that Cailan played hero and ordered his men to charge and meet the darkspawn, and left their well-fortified position.

[lyriumaddict104]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'd question the justification for siding with mages other than moral code and ethics crossing into your character's world view.

Strange. I see it as the other way around. It's illogical to do as Meredith bids and kill hundreds of people when the only one responsible for the crime that has set her off is still standing in front of everyone. If anyone had to die right then, it should have been Anders alone. Meredith was just using the assassination of Elthina and the destruction of the Chantry as a reason to kill all the mages in the Circle, as it seems she's wanted to do since at least the start of Act 2. Any Hawke who sides with the templars at that point has to do it based on personal preferences, world views, ideologies, etc. prior to Anders' bombing of the Chantry. He isn't proof that all mages are bad, or that those unaware of his actions deserve to die.

The depth and severity of mage hate here disturbs me. I can understand not liking a certain (fictional) people but hating them as if they're worse than the darkspawn? Mages are still human beings (not forgetting the elves). Also, if we all were threatened by our governments, or any secular or private organizations, with the possibility of being imprisoned or killed for our potential to do harm, would we still be in favor of subjugating different people based on the presumption of guilt? Obviously those who argue in favor of imprisoning all mages within a Circle don't identify with them as closely as mage-supporters like myself do, yet how is the threat of being locked away for life due to an accident of birth not a concern for everyone? Why is it easier to inflict that punishment on someone else and not upon ourselves or anyone we care about? If you wouldn't want it done to you, don't wish it on anyone else. Seems like a good policy.

[Rinshikai10]

lyriumaddict104 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'd question the justification for siding with mages other than moral code and ethics crossing into your character's world view.

Strange. I see it as the other way around. It's illogical to do as Meredith bids and kill hundreds of people when the only one responsible for the crime that has set her off is still standing in front of everyone. If anyone had to die right then, it should have been Anders alone. Meredith was just using the assassination of Elthina and the destruction of the Chantry as a reason to kill all the mages in the Circle, as it seems she's wanted to do since at least the start of Act 2. Any Hawke who sides with the templars at that point has to do it based on personal preferences, world views, ideologies, etc. prior to Anders' bombing of the Chantry. He isn't proof that all mages are bad, or that those unaware of his actions deserve to die.

The depth and severity of mage hate here disturbs me. I can understand not liking a certain (fictional) people but hating them as if they're worse than the darkspawn? Mages are still human beings (not forgetting the elves). Also, if we all were threatened by our governments, or any secular or private organizations, with the possibility of being imprisoned or killed for our potential to do harm, would we still be in favor of subjugating different people based on the presumption of guilt? Obviously those who argue in favor of imprisoning all mages within a Circle don't identify with them as closely as mage-supporters like myself do, yet how is the threat of being locked away for life due to an accident of birth not a concern for everyone? Why is it easier to inflict that punishment on someone else and not upon ourselves or anyone we care about? If you wouldn't want it done to you, don't wish it on anyone else. Seems like a good policy.

This statment is how I have always looked at the situtaion in Thedas. It made me want to ask Thrask "You would not send your daughter to the Circle, but you would demand it of another?"

[MisterJB]

lyriumaddict104 wrote...
The depth and severity of mage hate here disturbs me. I can understand not liking a certain (fictional) people but hating them as if they're worse than the darkspawn? Mages are still human beings (not forgetting the elves). Also, if we all were threatened by our governments, or any secular or private organizations, with the possibility of being imprisoned or killed for our potential to do harm, would we still be in favor of subjugating different people based on the presumption of guilt? Obviously those who argue in favor of imprisoning all mages within a Circle don't identify with them as closely as mage-supporters like myself do, yet how is the threat of being locked away for life due to an accident of birth not a concern for everyone? Why is it easier to inflict that punishment on someone else and not upon ourselves or anyone we care about? If you wouldn't want it done to you, don't wish it on anyone else. Seems like a good policy.

That "policy" works solely in theory. We do things to each other that we would not do to ourselves everyday. Joyfully too. Thus, we can't simply trust each other to not do harm, especially when it is so easy to do and avoid punishment such as when there is a large gap between the power of the agressor and that of the victim.
Yes, as someone with no magical abilities, I admit I identify more closely with the mundanes of Thedas. However, I believe that if one were to look logically at the situation, putting emotions entirely aside, one must agree with the templars.
Normal people have their freedoms restricted as well to account for the possiblity that they cause harm. These rules and restrictions are not in place because we have given proof of being dangerous but because there is the potential that we are.
Logically, when your inborn potential for destruction is greater than that of your peers, the restrictions applied to you must account for this inequality and be harsher.

But, of course, people don't act based entirely on logic. I don't begrudge the mages for wanting freedom and neither shoud they bregrudge mundanes for wishing to be safe and with a role in shaping society.

[andy6915]

I sided with the Templars... As a mage Hawke. Why? I thought I could possibly minimize causalities that way. And I was right. If you side with the mages, EVERY SINGLE mage gets killed. Every damn one. Siding with the Templars lets you at least save a few. Not a lot, sure, but that's better then none. My mage understood, and figured he could lessen the damage and lives lost by siding with the Templars and using my position as Champion to made supersede a few of the knight commanders orders, which is exactly what I did. Besides, I knew doing that might make the Templars much less keen on trying to kill me for being a mage during an annulment. It's better to side with the templars both for Hawke and for the mages.

[LobselVith8]

andy69156915 wrote...

I thought I could minimize causalities that way. And I was right.

No, you aren't. You're helping the templars execute mages. You don't save the lives of mages by executing them. In the particular scene you reference, only three mages can be spared, while the templars are executing hundreds of men, women, and children for an act that Anders alone is responsible for, and those mages will likely be made tranquil.

Varric will only reference that there were "many survivors" from the Gallows with one specific ending, and that's when Hawke sides with the mages.

[SweQue]

The general population isnt gonna suffer because mages go away, but having mages free roam the cities is a huge threat.
Imagien if we just said "fine" 5% of teh population has right to carry machine guns.
Yes, its their birthright to that.
Mages will abuse their power on the commoners, templars have no power for it - seeing how the real army in each kingdom isnt the tempalrs.

[DKJaigen]

SweQue wrote...

The general population isnt gonna suffer because mages go away, but having mages free roam the cities is a huge threat.
Imagien if we just said "fine" 5% of teh population has right to carry machine guns.
Yes, its their birthright to that.
Mages will abuse their power on the commoners, templars have no power for it - seeing how the real army in each kingdom isnt the tempalrs.

Im both trained in martial arts and have a gun and can potentially kill dozens perhaps hundreds. Should i be locked up as well? Being dangerous is no grounds for being locked up. The only grounds the templars have to lock up mages is because they become abominations. however i question the methods of such a system. The fereldan circle clearly shows that templars are in no way capable of defeating abominations. in fact, because their where so many mages concentrated at one spot it nearly created a disaster of an abomination army being made.

[DKJaigen]

andy69156915 wrote...

I sided with the Templars... As a mage Hawke. Why? I thought I could possibly minimize causalities that way. And I was right. If you side with the mages, EVERY SINGLE mage gets killed. Every damn one. Siding with the Templars lets you at least save a few. Not a lot, sure, but that's better then none. My mage understood, and figured he could lessen the damage and lives lost by siding with the Templars and using my position as Champion to made supersede a few of the knight commanders orders, which is exactly what I did. Besides, I knew doing that might make the Templars much less keen on trying to kill me for being a mage during an annulment. It's better to side with the templars both for Hawke and for the mages.

I believe some dip****s in WW2 used the same argument. they where all hanged however

[lyriumaddict104]

MisterJB wrote...

lyriumaddict104 wrote...
 If you wouldn't want it done to you, don't wish it on anyone else. Seems like a good policy.

That "policy" works solely in theory. We do things to each other that we would not do to ourselves everyday. Joyfully too. Thus, we can't simply trust each other to not do harm, especially when it is so easy to do and avoid punishment such as when there is a large gap between the power of the agressor and that of the victim.
Yes, as someone with no magical abilities, I admit I identify more closely with the mundanes of Thedas. However, I believe that if one were to look logically at the situation, putting emotions entirely aside, one must agree with the templars.
Normal people have their freedoms restricted as well to account for the possiblity that they cause harm. These rules and restrictions are not in place because we have given proof of being dangerous but because there is the potential that we are.
Logically, when your inborn potential for destruction is greater than that of your peers, the restrictions applied to you must account for this inequality and be harsher.

But, of course, people don't act based entirely on logic. I don't begrudge the mages for wanting freedom and neither shoud they bregrudge mundanes for wishing to be safe and with a role in shaping society.

I understand where you're coming from, and there are things I'd never want done to myself either. But I can't say, "rather you than me", always. There are things we can do to each other that I wouldn't wish on anyone. I like to believe that having a healthy respect for and understanding of the tools we use that can harm others keeps us from turning into monsters ourselves. (*ME2 SPOILER: I'm stealing an example from a game to help make my point but I think that it was Garrus possibly who commented on that scene Shepard and co. witnessed with a guard beating an inmate that such abuses only make the one committing them sicker and meaner the more it occurs. I can't remember exactly who said that to Shep. but it happened in Jack's recruitment quest. I liked what he said, and that he said it.) Another crazy example: I can speak for myself when I say that I'd be less eager to use a taser against another person (if I ever had such authority and access to one) if I knew exactly what it feels like to be tased (and God help me, I never want to).

Someone else on the thread made a good point that the templars don't have much first-hand knowledge of what it's like to wander the Fade self-aware and awake and it's not like they'd really trust the ones experiencing it to tell them about it either. It was also mentioned that the templars don't have a proven method to determine who's possessed before that person wreaks havoc (if say, it happens after the Harrowing). Yet they have the authority to kill these people based on suspicion alone? Both Anders and Merrill had ways to test Keran when/if Hawke saved him. Of course, we wouldn't share how Merrill knew but there has to be some other way that the templars would be willing to accept, if anyone discovered and tested it. Most templars probably don't even try to imagine what it's like to be made tranquil. Anders, when saving his former lover and friend, can say to a Hawke who won't kill him, that he hopes if he were ever in the same position that a friend would have the decency and mercy to kill him (Anders). Hawke can also say something like, "my sister says being made tranquil is a fate worse than death". Perhaps if more templars in Kirkwall's Circle had empathized with mages who felt that way, fewer might have remained silent while the abuses continued. It is troubling that the Circle allows the ignorant to monitor those without any say, ultimately, in whether they themselves live or die. You're right that "it is so easy to do and avoid punishment such as when there is a large gap between the power of the aggressor and that of the victim". Yet it is my naive and idealistic hope that there would be fewer aggressors if more truly understood the effects of their actions towards/against their victims. Maybe it's easier to go along with something horrible if one never truly faces the reality of what one is doing to another human being?

We probably differ on the belief that we cannot trust each other not to do harm, when we're all capable of doing it. Most days I am pessimistic and have no faith in the human race, at least in the real world. But in the case of the mages, I'd rather change my mind and believe them innocent until proven guilty. Better that than to punish them based on an accident of birth, which they cannot help as far as we know, and assume their guilt before they've had a chance to even prove that they're better than the worst we think of them. I admit that emotion probably plays a huge part in how I perceive the "plight" of the mages but even in putting emotions aside, I can't exactly agree with the templars. I acknowledge that mages pose a potential threat that no other class in Thedas does, yet this threat also grants them greater personal responsibility that they can manage without being incarcerated by those either unwilling or incapable of understanding and treating them as equals. I liked someone else's idea that if mages were allowed more connection to the outside world their respect and concern for that community would grow and provide them with even greater reason to see to it that they never give into temptation, or fail to protect others from themselves. I wondered what makes we players identify better with one side over the other as many of us likely don't believe in magic in real life, so we have nothing to actually relate to with mages in Dragon Age on that level, but we also don't have anything to turn us against it, at least it would seem so.

I'd rather turn your point around and look at it this way: normal people have their freedoms because there are enough laws in place to punish us if we do wrong. Maybe it's too big of a generalization to say but it's possible that the fear of punishment is enough to keep many people from comitting crimes. I worry now that our society is promoting the idea that freedom needs to be restricted in order to keep us free. As if we have to give up more of our rights in order to be safe. That's not necessarily true. People can be trusted with their freedom, and put back in their place if they cross the line. Even the Circle in Ferelden seems like a gilded cage. I almost agree with Orsino at the end, "why don't they just drown us as infants? why give us the illusion of hope?" Take away too much and you make people's lives not worth living.

I understand your point but I disagree that restrictions need to be harsher, from the start,  for those born with greater potential, where such people lack any input into how their lives are shaped or destroyed. It's like handing over complete control of your life to people who don't know anything about or even care about you, at least not as a person. I could accept harsher punishments for mages who abuse their power to account for the inequality between mages and mundanes, as mages have access to power and abilities that mundanes never will. However, I believe that something better than even the Circle in Ferelden must be implemented, for everyone's sake.

[lyriumaddict104]

Rinshikai10 wrote...

lyriumaddict104 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'd question the justification for siding with mages other than moral code and ethics crossing into your character's world view.

Strange. I see it as the other way around. It's illogical to do as Meredith bids and kill hundreds of people when the only one responsible for the crime that has set her off is still standing in front of everyone. If anyone had to die right then, it should have been Anders alone. Meredith was just using the assassination of Elthina and the destruction of the Chantry as a reason to kill all the mages in the Circle, as it seems she's wanted to do since at least the start of Act 2. Any Hawke who sides with the templars at that point has to do it based on personal preferences, world views, ideologies, etc. prior to Anders' bombing of the Chantry. He isn't proof that all mages are bad, or that those unaware of his actions deserve to die.

The depth and severity of mage hate here disturbs me. I can understand not liking a certain (fictional) people but hating them as if they're worse than the darkspawn? Mages are still human beings (not forgetting the elves). Also, if we all were threatened by our governments, or any secular or private organizations, with the possibility of being imprisoned or killed for our potential to do harm, would we still be in favor of subjugating different people based on the presumption of guilt? Obviously those who argue in favor of imprisoning all mages within a Circle don't identify with them as closely as mage-supporters like myself do, yet how is the threat of being locked away for life due to an accident of birth not a concern for everyone? Why is it easier to inflict that punishment on someone else and not upon ourselves or anyone we care about? If you wouldn't want it done to you, don't wish it on anyone else. Seems like a good policy.

This statment is how I have always looked at the situtaion in Thedas. It made me want to ask Thrask "You would not send your daughter to the Circle, but you would demand it of another?"

Thank you mentioning that. That's a very good example, though you're right that even having a daughter who was a mage and knowing what might happen to her in the Circle, Thrask was still willing to make someone else's child go there.

[andy6915]

So the part where you save mages my overruling the knight commander and Cullen listens to you over her was just... Imagined by me? Riiiigght...

[DKJaigen]

andy69156915 wrote...

So the part where you save mages my overruling the knight commander and Cullen listens to you over her was just... Imagined by me? Riiiigght...

Congratulations you only safe 3 and they likely be made tranquil afterwards.  You really need to pay some attention. because you aided the templars and broke the defenses of the mages the templars can now kill every man women and child in the circle unchecked. You can have many reasons to have the mages killed but do not bull**** me that you make this decision because you wanted to safe lives. The rite of annulment is clear: complete eradication of all mages. that you decided to spare a few doesnt mean that the other templars will be as mercifull as you are.

[andy6915]

Every mage in the tower is killed if you side with the mages. That's better then the few I saved siding with Templars? You're the one spouting bull**** here.

[TEWR]

Every mage in the tower is killed if you side with the mages.

Varric says that many Mages escaped thanks to Hawke being on their side.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 14 janvier 2013 - 03:17 .

[DKJaigen]

andy69156915 wrote...

Every mage in the tower is killed if you side with the mages. That's better then the few I saved siding with Templars? You're the one spouting bull**** here.

TEWR already confirmed what i said. But even if it was not i still find your way of thinking morally bankrupt. Your still killing a group of people who have done nothing wrong.

[andy6915]

I don't remember that. And rule# 1 of an internet argument is to provide links and sources to better prove your point and shut the opposition up. So... Do you have any links to shut me up?

[DKJaigen]

andy69156915 wrote...

I don't remember that. And rule# 1 of an internet argument is to provide links and sources to better prove your point and shut the opposition up. So... Do you have any links to shut me up?

You dont remember despite it being in the mage ending?



Observe 1:40 to 1:48

Now stop being a lazy **** and do your own research. this bit of information is hardly what you can call obscure

[Lazy Jer]

DKJaigen wrote...

andy69156915 wrote...

I don't remember that. And rule# 1 of an internet argument is to provide links and sources to better prove your point and shut the opposition up. So... Do you have any links to shut me up?

You dont remember despite it being in the mage ending?



Observe 1:40 to 1:48

Now stop being a lazy **** and do your own research. this bit of information is hardly what you can call obscure

Hey now....let's keep it civil, kids.