1082 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

I'll just ignore the fact you paint Alistair as a Templar and dismissed the fact that we've also got a mage who helped Alistair kill Titus.

You seem to view as everything the Templar do as "justified"--something which myself agree with--but exaggerate everything to play the victim, a tactic which mages themselves are very adept at. The fact that you dismiss the helpful mages to further cement your point of view just means this post will probably be wasted.

You condemn the portrayal of Templar doing their jobs as painting them as "heroes" and dismiss the fact that mages fight back as "villains", do you know why blood magic is often learned by these so-called "villains"? Templar can't shut it down with their anti-magic and blood magic trumps normal magic, it's the most effective way for mages to "fight back", it just comes easy and is corrupting.

Not only that, you seem to have some really far-fetched ideas which made me think that you're trolling (thus my earlier comment) such as "poor titus", showing sympathy for the man who wanted to destroy all of current civilization by molding reality or the Morrigan comments.

Just to get this out of the way, Morrigan has never claimed she's against blood magic. She's against the fact that Circle Mages bend over for the Templar and refuse to fight, she's against helping the helpess and Circle Mages--to her--are the most helpless of the bunch, that's where her "free" comments are from. It isn't relevant at all to blood magic.

Now onto Dragon Age 2: The entire point of Dragon Age 2 was showing the standard case of escalation, mages being pushed by Templar and mages pushing them back. You dismiss the fact that Templar are shown as abusive, neglectful and mark the comparison to the final solution as "justified" at the end of the game.

For Templar, the fact that they kept rubbing in rape, abuse of mages and non-mages alike and **** comparisons led me to absolute loathe the lack of subtlety in Dragon Age 2's writing, they didn't lambast only mages when they wrote the game.

Hell, they do an excessive job at trying to point Meredith as the crazy one and Orsino as the sensible one, something which further upsets the pro-mages when their trust in Orsino goes wrong despite earlier foreshadowing.

They failed at the portrayal of both sides in Dragon Age 2.

As for Dawn of the Seeker, might I point out that mages were the ones who saved Cassandra and protected the Divine from the assassination plot orchestrated by a Grand Cleric and Knight-Commander who murders the High Seeker?

Your entire post seems to reek that you hate seeing both sides having legitimate points.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 mai 2013 - 02:31 .

[Avaflame]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'll just ignore the fact you paint Alistair as a Templar and dismissed the fact that we've also got a mage who helped Alistair kill Titus.

You seem to view as everything the Templar do as "justified"--something which myself agree with--but exaggerate everything to play the victim, a tactic which mages themselves are very adept at. The fact that you dismiss the helpful mages to further cement your point of view just means this post will probably be wasted.

You condemn the portrayal of Templar doing their jobs as painting them as "heroes" and dismiss the fact that mages fight back as "villains", do you know why blood magic is often learned by these so-called "villains"? Templar can't shut it down with their anti-magic and blood magic trumps normal magic, it's the most effective way for mages to "fight back", it just comes easy and is corrupting.

Not only that, you seem to have some really far-fetched ideas which made me think that you're trolling (thus my earlier comment) such as "poor titus", showing sympathy for the man who wanted to destroy all of current civilization by molding reality or the Morrigan comments.

Just to get this out of the way, Morrigan has never claimed she's against blood magic. She's against the fact that Circle Mages bend over for the Templar and refuse to fight, she's against helping the helpess and Circle Mages--to her--are the most helpless of the bunch, that's where her "free" comments are from. It isn't relevant at all to blood magic.

Now onto Dragon Age 2: The entire point of Dragon Age 2 was showing the standard case of escalation, mages being pushed by Templar and Templar pushing them back. You dismiss the fact that Templar are shown as abusive, neglectful and mark the comparison to the final solution as "justified" at the end of the game.

For Templar, the fact that they kept rubbing in rape, abuse of mages and non-mages alike and **** comparisons led me to absolute loathe the lack of subtlety in Dragon Age 2's writing, they didn't lambast only mages when they wrote the game.

Hell, they do an excessive job at trying to point Meredith as the crazy one and Orsino as the sensible one, something which further upsets the pro-mages when their trust in Orsino goes wrong despite earlier foreshadowing.

They failed at the portrayal of both sides in Dragon Age 2.

As for Dawn of the Seeker, might I point out that mages were the ones who saved Cassandra and protected the Divine from the assassination plot orchestrated by a Grand Cleric and Knight-Commander who murders the High Seeker?

Your entire post seems to reek that you hate seeing both sides having legitimate points.

So much this.

[PsychoBlonde]

IanPolaris wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

When are Templars ever good guys?

Ser Otto in Denerim's alienage comes immediately to mind. Edit:  Also Knight Commander Gregoire is someone I would generally regard as a good guy (more good than bad anyways).
-Polaris

I liked Gregoir a lot.  Cullen is also (largely) a decent guy.  As is Samson, although he's an ex-Templar.  And Kevan.  And Evangeline.

If you take any faction in the games, there's a fair split of decent vs. bat****.

[Lt_Riley]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'll just ignore the fact you paint Alistair as a Templar and dismissed the fact that we've also got a mage who helped Alistair kill Titus.

I don't have to paint him as such. Alistair is a templar. He has all the templar abilities and like I said in a earlier post, frequently refers to himself as such.

You seem to view as everything the Templar do as "justified"--something which myself agree with--but exaggerate everything to play the victim, a tactic which mages themselves are very adept at. The fact that you dismiss the helpful mages to further cement your point of view just means this post will probably be wasted.

I don't agree with the templars actions if that's what you're implying, i'm just giving an unbiased perspective. I'm saying the mages actions are being painted to justify the templars means, no matter how extreme ; ie Gregoirs men keeping the few innocent mages locked in to avoid a crisis created by mages themselves from getting out and killing a far greater number of innocent people. In this instance gregoir was supposed to look cruel for locking the door so the mages couldn't get out, but he doesn't because the mages created the issue, and the most noble decision is always to sacrifice the few for the many. That's my point, the templars look heroic even when they aren't meant to. Also I didn't dismiss wynne and irving saving the circle; I pointed out that they did just that. I also pointed out that the surving mages are the ones who agree with templar control, and that's not my opinion, they themselves say so.

You condemn the portrayal of Templar doing their jobs as painting them as "heroes" and dismiss the fact that mages fight back as "villains", do you know why blood magic is often learned by these so-called "villains"? Templar can't shut it down with their anti-magic and blood magic trumps normal magic, it's the most effective way for mages to "fight back", it just comes easy and is corrupting.

I didn't dismiss the blood mages in the tower, they were clearly in the wrong and I don't deny that. I was referring to the mages you meet along the way in the tower who aren't part of the blood mage coup that get sealed in and punished along with them. Also I don't condemn the templars for doing their jobs, the greater good must always come first no matter how sour it is to swallow. My illustration was expressing how templars come out looking heroes vs mages, even when their actions against the mages are on a moral low ground, such as sealing them in and anulling the circle. The templars walk away either way as heroes for having held the line against demons while the innocent mages who saved the circle still come away with a tarnished image, despite their good because a mage cause the problem to begin with.

Not only that, you seem to have some really far-fetched ideas which made me think that you're trolling (thus my earlier comment) such as "poor titus", showing sympathy for the man who wanted to destroy all of current civilization by molding reality or the Morrigan comments.

My perspective is far fetched because I felt bad titus got his head cut off? That makes no sense. One of the reasons I felt bad for titus was because in his own twisted way, he just wanted a world without the chantry where mages lived free (i.e purging the chant from everyones mind). But all the freedom he thought he had achieved was shown to have always been little more than an illusion before his death. To have fought so hard, only to realize you gained nothing for your efforts is pitiable indeed. Also there is nothing wrong about reshaping civilization if you think you can make it better, such as Andraste did. And no I'm not saying I agree with titus ideas for reshaping civilization, I'm just saying it's not a bad thing to do in and of itself.

Just to get this out of the way, Morrigan has never claimed she's against blood magic. She's against the fact that Circle Mages bend over for the Templar and refuse to fight, she's against helping the helpess and Circle Mages--to her--are the most helpless of the bunch, that's where her "free" comments are from. It isn't relevant at all to blood magic.

Morrigan does indeed get defensive with the pc, claiming not all mages who want to live free use blood magic, implying she herself doesn't use such. Morrigan doesn't think the mages are helpless, she abhors them because they willingly wear the chantrys slave chains. Also morrigan is not against helping the helpless. She states in orzammar that she can't understand why the castless don't rise up against their betters.

Now onto Dragon Age 2: The entire point of Dragon Age 2 was showing the standard case of escalation, mages being pushed by Templar and mages pushing them back. You dismiss the fact that Templar are shown as abusive, neglectful and mark the comparison to the final solution as "justified" at the end of the game.

I didn't dismiss any of the templars abuses at all, I mentioned them in the op. Everything the templars did to hound and abuse the suspect blood mages was justified when the towers mages actually did turn out to be blood mages, not once but twice (Thrask coup/merediths anullment). Feel free to disagree.

For Templar, the fact that they kept rubbing in rape, abuse of mages and non-mages alike and **** comparisons led me to absolute loathe the lack of subtlety in Dragon Age 2's writing, they didn't lambast only mages when they wrote the game.

The rape was only mentioned once, and even then it was implied by Allan.

Hell, they do an excessive job at trying to point Meredith as the crazy one and Orsino as the sensible one, something which further upsets the pro-mages when their trust in Orsino goes wrong despite earlier foreshadowing.

That isn't bias speaking at all. Why shouldn't they be upset? One of the major mage leaders gives into blood magic and further justifies the anullment, despite his fellow mages begging and pleading with him not to. AlsoMeredith is actually shown to be quite sensible, despite her possesion, as evidenced by her refusal of Alriks suggestion.

As for Dawn of the Seeker, might I point out that mages were the ones who saved Cassandra and protected the Divine from the assassination plot orchestrated by a Grand Cleric and Knight-Commander who murders the High Seeker?

I haven't even finished writing my perspective on DotS plot. Also might I point out that every mage that jumped to cassandras defence was pledged to the chantry, while every mage not of the circle was portrayed as a blood mage.

Your entire post seems to reek that you hate seeing both sides having legitimate points.

Then you missed the point of my entire post.

Modifié par Lt_Riley, 31 mai 2013 - 04:45 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Lt_Riley wrote...

You seem to view as everything the Templar do as "justified"--something which myself agree with--but exaggerate everything to play the victim, a tactic which mages themselves are very adept at. The fact that you dismiss the helpful mages to further cement your point of view just means this post will probably be wasted.

I don't agree with the templars actions if that's what you're implying, i'm just giving an unbiased perspective. I'm saying the mages actions are being painted to justify the templars means, no matter how extreme ; ie Gregoirs men keeping the few innocent mages locked in to avoid a crisis created by mages themselves from getting out and killing a far greater number of innocent people. In this instance gregoir was supposed to look cruel for locking the door so the mages couldn't get out, but he doesn't because the mages created the issue, and the most noble decision is always to sacrifice the few for the many. That's my point, the templars look heroic even when they aren't meant to. Also I didn't dismiss wynne and irving saving the circle; I pointed out that they did just that. I also pointed out that the surving mages are the ones who agree with templar control, and that's not my opinion, they themselves say so.

I never got the impression that Gregoir's actions here were meant to look anything but reasonable. Could you cite some evidence that that's not what we were supposed to see?

Your entire post seems to reek that you hate seeing both sides having legitimate points.

Then you missed the point of my entire post.

Could you explain what that point is? If what Dave says isn't the point of your post, then I missed it too.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 31 mai 2013 - 05:21 .

[Lt_Riley]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

I never got the impression that Gregoir's actions here were meant to
look anything but reasonable. Could you cite some evidence that that's
not what we were supposed to see?

Of course. You can check out this video of the Pcs varied responses, expressing shock and dismay that gregoir would lock them in. For a more indepth study of all responses, you'll have to replay that section manually. Circle tower starts at 6:50 <link>

Could you explain what that point is? If what Dave says isn't the point of your post, then I missed it too.

You quoted the section where I expressly pointed it out.

Modifié par Lt_Riley, 31 mai 2013 - 05:31 .

[d-boy15]

I though both side are presented fair enough.

Anyway...

Meredith = intended last boss

Orsino = unintended boss (they just need another boss so, he going crazy for that)

Modifié par d-boy15, 31 mai 2013 - 05:48 .

[TK514]

If the Dev plan for DA 2 really was to make the choice harder, then whoever was responsible for the plot didn't get the message. The Templars are nearly universally characterized as monsters, while the Circle Mages are characterized as victims pushed to the edge.

There are maybe 3 Templars in the game that we interact with in any meaningful fashion that go against the general characterization. One of those is humiliated in battle, then ridiculed by the guard and his superiors and finally killed. Another is completely unable to achive any of his stated aims before he too is killed. The third, assuming he isn't kicked out immediately after we rescue him, doesn't even make full Templar before resigning because he can't stomache what's being done. The head of the Order is characterized from the beginning as paranoid and power hungry at best, and moves directly to genocidally insane. Her top lieutenants are nearly as bad, the best of which merely thinks Mages are weapons who can't be treated as people, and the worst of whom think all Mages should be turned into his personal pliant toys.

The Circle Mages, on the other hand, with one notable exception I can think of, are portrayed as reasonable individuals who just want to see their people receive relief from a horrific regime, as victims who are driven to their actions due to said regime, or both. This dichotomy between likable Mage and unlikable Templar is even illustrated in Hawke's siblings.

The game couldn't have been less subtle about 'Templars bad, Mages good' if it had come boxed with a hammer and instructions to smash you fingers every time a Templar entered a scene.

Modifié par TK514, 31 mai 2013 - 05:56 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Lt_Riley wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

I never got the impression that Gregoir's actions here were meant to
look anything but reasonable. Could you cite some evidence that that's
not what we were supposed to see?

Of course. You can check out this video of the Pcs varied responses, expressing shock and dismay that gregoir would lock them in. For a more indepth study of all responses, you'll have to replay that section manually. Circle tower starts at 6:50 <link>

You're assuming that the PC is meant to be the reasonable looking one here. From the Codex entry on abominations, and the fact that if memory serves he specifically mentions a horde of the creatures he was ready for two of, I don't think the devs were trying to make him look like he was at all overreacting.

Could you explain what that point is? If what Dave says isn't the point of your post, then I missed it too.

You quoted the section where I expressly pointed it out.

Okay, but I think Dave has it when he mentions Templar abuses and mage heroism, and says that you don't see that both sides are meant to have a point.

[Ieldra]

I think there is a reasonable balance in the portrayal of the Templars. Most of them are just doing their job - after all, keeping mages in the Circle and killing abominations IS their appointed duty and we can hardly fault them for doing it - and there are some outliers on the sympathetic (Thrask) and the abusive (Alrik) side. Even Meredith starts out as perhaps a little overzealous in her protection of the status quo but not evil. For most of the game Meredith came across to me as a political antagonist, not a villain.

The picture is different with mages. The fact that I'd need to consult the wiki to find a named mage in DA2 who is neither a part of Hawke's family nor a companion and doesn't turn into an abomination speaks for itself. As is the fact that when I try to come up with a "non-abomination mage" the first one my memory coughs up is Danarius.

So I say the OP has a point if we're speaking of DA2. But IMO it was not intended that way. It was a failed portrayal. The OP also has a point that there is a tendency to use a megalomaniac mage if you're in need of a villain because the "evil mage" is an ingrained stereotype while the "evil knight" is not. This needs active balancing by the lead writers with regard to the way the different stories set in Thedas combine into a bigger picture.

I attribute the failure of the portrayal to Bioware's ham-handedness when trying to bring across to the players that "they're not all good/victims" (mages) or "they're not all bad" (qunari). There is a need to stress these things since most players automatically tend to sympathize with the underdog (Circle mages) and hate would-be conquerors (qunari). The bad side of the mages and the good side of the qunari need to be shown - and shown in a manner that leaves no doubt that they exist. But the fact that the writing team wants to bring this home to even the most biased or oblivious player results in overstressing the point - and we get DA2's portrayal of mages and MotA's forced complicity in a qunari plot.

I think the writing team should not address those players who are most determined to stay firmly on one side and try to make them accept that there's good and bad to both sides. If 80% of players side with the mages in spite of everything, then that's that. It doesn't mean those players don't see the bad side. It means that they tend to value autonomy over security in spite of the bad. Surprise, surprise - how can you *not* expect players to express the dominant values of their culture (I'm assuming that most players are from the "western" cultural sphere)? It's nice to try and make people question how their values apply to Thedas - but please, not at the cost of story and world consistency.

Bioware, your player base is intrinsically biased because of their cultural background. Accept it and do not try to change it at the cost of derailing your story and compromising the integrity of your fictional universe.

Edit:
I have not yet watched "Dawn of the Seeker" (it just arrived). It may be that it will change my impression. I have read all the comics and one of Gaider's books.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 31 mai 2013 - 07:12 .

[Fredward]

Oh look it has devolved into another mage vs templar thread. Moral relativism means this argument will never be resolved. Though Kohlberg would totally say the mage-supporters are at a higher moral development stage than the templar-supporters. Just sayin'.

Anyway, as you were. The cycle must continue and all that.

[Little Princess Peach]

Op you are reading way to much into this, for all we know we could be seeing things from a templar P.O.V, of corse they will see them selves as the savior of mankind,they force the mages to do drastic things and then wonder why they are being killed

[GodWood]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
Oh look it has devolved into another mage vs templar thread. Moral relativism means this argument will never be resolved. Though Kohlberg would totally say the mage-supporters are at a higher moral development stage than the templar-supporters. Just sayin'.

Well that's a half-arsed argument from authority. Easily debatable too.

Kolberg's last two stages of moral development are:
     - Social contract orientation
     - Universal ethical principals

The first one is simply the stage where one realizes laws are not rigid absolutes but social contracts. At this stage one realizes that if these laws do not generate the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people they should be changed. This can easily be applied to the pro-templar argument as it is largely utilitarian in nature.

The last stage "Universal ethical principals" is simply thought out moral reasoning that is deduced from personal contemplation and not societal expectation. Again, something easily achievable for a pro-templar person.

But really, who the **** cares what Kohlberg thinks.

[Zanallen]

Huh, and here I thought the templars were generally being portrayed as the bad guys.

[Fredward]

GodWood wrote...
Well that's a half-arsed argument from authority. Easily debatable too.

Kolberg's last two stages of moral development are:
     - Social contract orientation
     - Universal ethical principals

The first one is simply the stage where one realizes laws are not rigid absolutes but social contracts. At this stage one realizes that if these laws do not generate the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people they should be changed. This can easily be applied to the pro-templar argument as it is largely utilitarian in nature.

The last stage "Universal ethical principals" is simply thought out moral reasoning that is deduced from personal contemplation and not societal expectation. Again, something easily achievable for a pro-templar person.

But really, who the **** cares what Kohlberg thinks.

I know, I was shamelessly generalizing. But if you look at the arguments from the regulars in these "debates" you'll notice a number of them actually do corespond with Kohlberg's theory, on the surface anyway. Templar supporters usually go with "what's good for society" while mage supporters go "YAY FREEDOM!" But you're right, can't really be sure without knowing how they reason.

I'd also guess that templar supporters are more inclined to be republican/conservative and mage supporters more inclined to be liberal.

Modifié par Foopydoopydoo, 31 mai 2013 - 08:03 .

[GodWood]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
I'd also guess that templar supporters are more inclined to be republican/conservative and mage supporters more inclined to be liberal.

It would be interesting to know each posters political ideology and how it affects their choice in the debate. Unfortunately Bioware are fascists when it comes to any kind of political discussion.

For what it's worth I'm very far left, support the templars over the mages and hate both liberals and conservatives with a passion.

Modifié par GodWood, 31 mai 2013 - 08:19 .

[Ausstig]

Ieldra2 wrote...
"they're not all bad" (qunari). and hate would-be conquerors (qunari). the good side of the qunari need to be shown - and shown in a manner that leaves no doubt that they exist. But the fact that the writing team wants to bring this home to even the most biased or oblivious player results in overstressing the point - and we get DA2's portrayal of mages and MotA's forced complicity in a qunari plot.

When were the Qunari shown as bad?

I hate how everyone (except the oh so evil Sister Petrice) likes them. Alister reaches out to them, the Arishock is shown as being pushed, the Vicount's son loves them, he is also made to look very sympathic to modern views. And Hawk sides with them, always in the case MotA and by defult (unless you are very agressive) in the main game.

[Hazegurl]

TK514 wrote...

If the Dev plan for DA 2 really was to make the choice harder, then whoever was responsible for the plot didn't get the message. The Templars are nearly universally characterized as monsters, while the Circle Mages are characterized as victims pushed to the edge.

I actually think they did a pretty okay job of displaying the points of each side, even though they made both Mages and Templars look almost like caricatures. We know from Origins that Mages can be corrupt and Templars can be reasonable but the game wasn't about them so we only got  a glimpse of the conflict and it was usually from the mage pov which makes it easier to sympathize with them.

In DA2 the conflict pushed us forward into the Mage/Templar conflict and while we saw corrupt Templars who abused their power we also saw Templars who were just doing what they signed up for, which is police Mages, etc. We also saw Mages who were desperate and willing to do anything to escape the abuse. However, we also saw first hand how disgustingly corrupt some Mages are and the very reason why the Circles exist in the first place.

If anything, the point is missed on a lot of players because for years they have sympathized with the Mages alone and any legitimate point that goes against that is simply getting brushed off or met with hostility against the writers. Hence this thread.

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Oh look it has devolved into another mage vs templar thread. Moral relativism means this argument
will never be resolved. Though Kohlberg would totally say the mage-supporters are at a higher moral development stage than the templar-supporters. Just sayin'.

Anyway, as you were. The cycle must continue and all that.

Yay! Now the thread will turn into how some people are morally superior than everyone else based on their choice in a video game's fictional world where people shoot lightening bolts and others dispel magic!! Now all we need are the political comparisons to fully complete the cycle.

I'd also guess that templar supporters are more inclined to be republican/conservative and mage supporters more inclined to be liberal.

Cycle complete. The BSN devil thanks you.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 31 mai 2013 - 09:51 .

[thebigbad1013]

To me, the most interesting thing about the mage/templar conflict is that neither side is completely right or wrong and I think that, overall, that has been established pretty well. I don't see any kind of indication that BioWare is pushing one as the good and the other as the bad.

[KiwiQuiche]

Well, unless someone invokes Godwin's Law, I'm alright with a debate.

[Catroi]

Bioware always fails at "morally grey" things (open palm/closed fist; Quarians/Geth; Mage/Templars)

[IanPolaris]

Filament wrote...

I think you'd have to be pretty biased to think the templars have been portrayed as overly heroic to contrast the mages' villainy. DA2 showed the extreme bad of both sides with precious little good or sensible people to go around. Among the extreme ones, it seems that for the templars, it was mostly comically evil characters with one exceptionally insane one, and for the mages it was mostly insane characters with one exceptionally evil one. I think they all suffered from poor characterization that made the conflict less meaningful than it could have been. But they all nonetheless existed, so to say the templars are being portrayed as some heroic shining light here, I don't even know what and how much you need to smoke to start thinking like that.

I'll agree that both sides were presented badly (and I have already said as much), but the key difference is this:

We never see the Templars abusing mages, or doing various vile things.  We only hear about them.  OTOH, the player is virtually forcefed a diet of crazy mages that do the most vile things (or try to) right in front of you, and force you to fight them (Tarhone and Franken-Mommy come immediately to mind).  Come on, if Fankenmommy wasn't a naked appeal to get the player to hate mages, then what was it?

This is stacking the deck.

-Polaris

[KiwiQuiche]

Well, Bioware did drop the ball impressively in DA2; I just hated both sides by the end of it due to their incredible incompetence and stupidity.

Though apparently being completely retarded and insane is a Kirkwall thing due to Tevinter crap. :| Wooo, nice explanation, Bioware.

Modifié par KiwiQuiche, 31 mai 2013 - 11:50 .

[IanPolaris]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Though apparently being completely retarded and insane is a Kirkwall thing due to Tevinter crap. :| Wooo, nice explanation, Bioware.

Yeah and it's an explaination that Bioware tries to hide in some very obscure and hard to find codex entries.

-Polaris