1082 réponses à ce sujet

[Bleachrude]

Star fury wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

The Cerberus treatment is when a smallfaction that is morally grey gets made into a cartoonish organization of evil and a sith empire w/ a mustasche-twirling supervillain in the next game. Extra points for having a vast army and equipment if the faction was had relatively few people and resources.

Cerberus were bad guys in ME1 - everyone and his dog knew about admiral Kahoku's assassination and their immoral expirements. Hell, they even unleashed thresher maws on survivor Shepard. Bioware made them look a lot better in ME2, but they returned to their origins in the last game.
P.S. Did you play ME1? Just saying. 


On the other hand, Templars in DA:O and DA2 differ like normal police(if heavy-handed) and gestapo. 

THIS

I'm always amused by people that say Cerberus was "grey"....it's like they never played ME1

[MisterJB]

Bleachrude wrote...
THIS

I'm always amused by people that say Cerberus was "grey"....it's like they never played ME1

It's like you never talked to Miranda. She justified the operations in ME1.

[Lotion Soronarr]

billy the squid wrote...
The concept then is irrelevant as they are utterly trampled. Like many of the concepts in real world medieval society were limited to the upper echelons. If you were a pesant, or a jew, or other social class deemed lower by the ruling class, you were essentially screwed. The concepts existing in the higher echenlons, doesn't make them human rights., because they are not universal, nor universally applied. They are just that, concepts applied on a whim.

If you want to get technical, they aren't even in the modern world.

Human rights are a human construct. They only "really" exist as long as they are allowed to exist.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

If the player killed Oghren, no genuine explanation given for his ressurection. Justice can die in the Dragonbone Wastes and Anders may not have been recruited, but no explanation is given as to how the met, especially when the former is technically dead and in the Fade at this point. The developers have gone out of their way to say that Leliana coming back to life will be explained, but whether or not they acknowledge that The Warden killed her in the actual story, even the developers admit that the player could kill her in Origins. I'm honestly not certain why you think that's even debatable.

No fuss was raised about Oghren, so no explanation was needed. It was a simple retcon of "it never happened".

They could use the same for Leli, but it wouldn't pass as well among the fans, so an explanation makes more sense.
It can go for "the player struck her down, but she survived" to "the Maker revived her".

Again, you got too hunged up on the wording, and wether or not the player could "kill" her is irrelevant.

[Plaintiff]

MisterJB wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...
THIS

I'm always amused by people that say Cerberus was "grey"....it's like they never played ME1

It's like you never talked to Miranda. She justified the operations in ME1.

I'm sure she thinks she did.

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...
THIS

I'm always amused by people that say Cerberus was "grey"....it's like they never played ME1

It's like you never talked to Miranda. She justified the operations in ME1.

I'm sure she thinks she did.

The existence of gray morality is not dependant upon your support of it, Plaintiff.
By presenting a different perspective that allowed the player to see the actions of Cerberus in a more positive light, she introduced grey morality to ME1's quests.

[Plaintiff]

MisterJB wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...
THIS

I'm always amused by people that say Cerberus was "grey"....it's like they never played ME1

It's like you never talked to Miranda. She justified the operations in ME1.

I'm sure she thinks she did.

The existence of gray morality is not dependant upon your support of it, Plaintiff.
By presenting a different perspective that allowed the player to see the actions of Cerberus in a more positive light, she introduced grey morality to ME1's quests.

On the contrary, morality is entirely an issue of perception. I'm perfectly willing to admit that Miranda might see gray. I, however, do not.

I'm the only person I know who has even played  ME1 at all. Everyone I know personally started with ME2, with no prior knowledge of Cerberus, and it was clear to them from the onset that the group was sketchy at best, and that advocates like Miranda and Kelly Chambers were, to use their own terminology "complete morons".

The way I figure it, if people can play ME2, with no prior knowledge of Cerberus, and still come away with a very clear sense that the group is not to be trusted, then the issue as not nearly as "gray" as it pretends to be.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 06 juin 2013 - 01:05 .

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
On the contrary, morality is entirely an issue of perception. I'm perfectly willing to admit that Miranda might see gray. I, however, do not.

Fair enough.

I'm the only person I know who has even played  ME1 at all. Everyone I know personally started with ME2, with no prior knowledge of Cerberus, and it was clear to them from the onset that the group was sketchy at best, and that advocates like Miranda and Kelly Chambers were, to use their own terminology "complete morons".

The way I figure it, if people can play ME2, with no prior knowledge of Cerberus, and still come away with a very clear sense that the group is not to be trusted, then the issue as not nearly as "gray" as it pretends to be.

By that same logic, if people can play ME2, with previous knowledge of Cerberus, and come way with a very clear sense they were wrong about their preconceptions, the issue is clearly gray.
Every perspective ever will have proponents. Simply affirming this, is not much of an argument when discussing the worth of said perspective.

[Plaintiff]

It's not even that Cerberus is unethical (although they totally are), but they're also grossly incompetent. Their research technique is disgraceful.

"Oh, we'll just hook an autistic savant up to alien tech that we don't understand, with absolutely no clue what will happen, and not tell anyone outside the facility that we're doing it."

And the Lazarus Project, Jesus Christ. They had no way of knowing that Shepard wouldn't just wreck their **** up the minute he woke. Which is arguably what happened.

Cerberus is a hot mess. The left hand has no clue what the right one is doing. Every second mission in ME2 seems to involve uncovering some past or current travesty committed by unsupervised, Cerberus-funded scientists, which inevitably led to their own slaughter. And every single time the Illusive Man claims ignorance. For such a supposed criminal mastermind, he sure is a terrible judge of character. The only competent individual on Cerberus payroll was Shepard, and that little experiment doesn't turn out the way they wanted either.

In short, Cerberus' entire MO is to hire lazy, stupid, whackjob "scientists", use its bottomless money pit to fund their clearly suicidal experiments, and then apparently forget all about them until the experiment of the week goes rogue and kills everyone in Facility X, at which point they send in a crew to sweep up the bodies, file away the incident, and learn nothing whatsoever from the experience.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 06 juin 2013 - 02:01 .

[TK514]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TK514 wrote...

Blood Magic means there will always been a need in a mage nation for slaves, if they could even be called that, unless the mage overlords choose to and enforce stunting the use of magic below its fullest potential.  

And the single example in a continent with societies full of free mages is Tevinter? I don't see why any independent mage system would follow in the footsteps of Tevinter.

TK514 wrote...

Even if artificial blood could be created, and was a useful replacement in blood magic spells, it wouldn't be enough. World of Thedas states explicitly that "The more violent the pain or death used in blood magic, the more powerful a spell becomes". It is also explicit that Mages who use blood magic are more susceptible to demonic spirits. It's not an education issue, it's not a motive issue, it's just the cost of doing business in blood.

We also have mages who use blood magic for reasons that aren't malevolent and misuse their power, from the Grey Warden mages to Merrill. Using blood magic didn't change their motives: the Grey Wardens seek to protect people from the greatest threat on the planet, while Merrill is trying to restore technology that she believes can benefit the People.

TK514 wrote...

So unless your mage utopia was willing to shackle itself to lyrium, or simply make it legal for it's citizens to murder each other in increasingly horrific ways, there will always be a slave class necessary to support widespread use blood magic.

We have numerous examples of blood mages outside Tevinter who use blood magic without the need for slaves.

Did you even read the post I was responding to?  You either missed or ignored the relevant details.

Let me spell it out:

You can not use Blood Magic to its fullest potential without painful, violent death.  The more painful and violent, the stronger the spell.  This isn't open to debate.  What also isn't open for debate is that mages who use Blood Magic are more succeptible to demonic spirits.  It's just a fact of using Blood Magic.  Just like people who use paints for a living are more
likely to ruin the clothes they work in than people who use magic
markers(lyrium).  They won't ruin every shirt, and they may never ruin
one, but they are considerably more likely to do so.  Their intent is irrelevant.

Any "Mage Utopia" that intends to use magic to it's fullest potential will use Blood Magic and will need a source for the blood and the violent, painful death required.  So they're either going to allow citizens to torture and murder each other, or they're going to need slaves.  And they will be more succeptible to demonic spirits.

Sure, you can use Blood Magic with only your own blood, but its power and efficacy will be limited, and you won't be able to do the same range of things you could if you tortured and murdered one or more people to fuel your spell.  No matter how awesome they were, the Magisters could never have performed something on the scale of breaching the Fade using only their own blood.  They had to kill thousands of people to power the spell.

Now, if the so called Mage Utopia was willing to restrict itself and knowingly and deliberately stunt what they could attempt with their magic, sure, no slaves would be necessary.  They would never be using magic to its fullest potential, of course, and the most powerful feats would be out of their reach, but I suppose it's possible for a while.  Though, honestly, I wonder how long such a restriction would last.  Sure, there are good people like Merrill who would never dream of using another to fuel their spells.  But there are also people like Avernus for whom anything is justified so long as their goals are achieved.  As long as the Merrills are in power, you should be fine, but should the Avernus camp take over...well.  And we're also assuming no desensitization, or 'shifts in what is acceptable' of society overall.

[IanPolaris]

TK514 wrote...

Did you even read the post I was responding to?  You either missed or ignored the relevant details.

Let me spell it out:

You can not use Blood Magic to its fullest potential without painful, violent death.  The more painful and violent, the stronger the spell.  This isn't open to debate.  What also isn't open for debate is that mages who use Blood Magic are more succeptible to demonic spirits.  It's just a fact of using Blood Magic.  Just like people who use paints for a living are more
likely to ruin the clothes they work in than people who use magic
markers(lyrium).  They won't ruin every shirt, and they may never ruin
one, but they are considerably more likely to do so.  Their intent is irrelevant.

All this means is that bloodmagic should be restricted to the most skilled and trustworthy of mages, and extremely carefully regulated.  It probably should be illegal for most mages.  I also note that just because a bloodmage is more likely to suffer from spirit/demonic possession still doesn't make it common or likely.  It does mean that such mages need more supervision, that's all.  I also note that you don't have to use bloodmagic to it's fullest in that degree and we have many in-game examples where it isn't.

Any "Mage Utopia" that intends to use magic to it's fullest potential will use Blood Magic and will need a source for the blood and the violent, painful death required.  So they're either going to allow citizens to torture and murder each other, or they're going to need slaves.  And they will be more succeptible to demonic spirits.

Who says a "Mage Utopia" would use all magic to it's "fullest potential"?  For that matter what is a "mage utopia" anyways?  For many mages, I daresay being respected members of society able and willing to practice without fear would be utopia.  I also note there is no reason why mages and non-mages can't coexist side by side peacefully and amicably.  Too many people (esp pro-templar people) have too much Tevinter on the brain.

Sure, you can use Blood Magic with only your own blood, but its power and efficacy will be limited, and you won't be able to do the same range of things you could if you tortured and murdered one or more people to fuel your spell.  No matter how awesome they were, the Magisters could never have performed something on the scale of breaching the Fade using only their own blood.  They had to kill thousands of people to power the spell.

You can have allies do willing sacrifice as well.  You seem to make it sound like that any bloodmagic used from ethical sources would be weak and ineffectual, but we already know that isn't true.  Sometimes close enough is close enough.

Now, if the so called Mage Utopia was willing to restrict itself and knowingly and deliberately stunt what they could attempt with their magic, sure, no slaves would be necessary.  They would never be using magic to its fullest potential, of course, and the most powerful feats would be out of their reach, but I suppose it's possible for a while.  Though, honestly, I wonder how long such a restriction would last.  Sure, there are good people like Merrill who would never dream of using another to fuel their spells.  But there are also people like Avernus for whom anything is justified so long as their goals are achieved.  As long as the Merrills are in power, you should be fine, but should the Avernus camp take over...well.  And we're also assuming no desensitization, or 'shifts in what is acceptable' of society overall.

This is why you would have mages living alongside mundanes with a harsh set of rules and accoutabilty for magic and especially the sorts of magic that could be abused.  No system is perfect but that doesn't excuse not trying.

-Polaris

[TK514]

IanPolaris wrote...

Who says a "Mage Utopia" would use all magic to it's "fullest potential"? 

-Polaris

The person I was originally responding to, Drakar123, who's position was that Mages should create a mage only world and use magic to create world spanning portal networks, conquer death, use Blood Magic like it was nothing, dominate demons effortlessly, and ultimately wipe out all non-Mages for the good of the species.  And wouldn't need slaves to do any of it.

[Hazegurl]

billy the squid wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Human rights don't exist in Thedas, despite what Polaris has made up, they don't extend further than the upper echelons of society or where the money stops. That is not an representative of a rights system, it's an accurate portrayal of most medieval societies.

The concept of human rights do exist and are mentioned many times during the entire series...and yes for peasents too.  I note that the entire Magister Quest in Act 1 of DA2 dealt with human rights of commoners and minority commoners (elves) at that.  I grant that much of Thedas doesn't uphold them very well, but the concept and ideals do exist and are supposed to matter (and thus do matter for gameplay).

-Polaris

The concept then is irrelevant as they are utterly trampled. Like many of the concepts in real world medieval society were limited to the upper echelons. If you were a pesant, or a jew, or other social class deemed lower by the ruling class, you were essentially screwed. The concepts existing in the higher echenlons, doesn't make them human rights., because they are not universal, nor universally applied. They are just that, concepts applied on a whim. 

I don't even think the concept exist. Guards are just around to maintain order. I see no proof of the elves suggesting they should talk to the guards as a sign that a noble would be arrested and taken to court and tried for his crimes. More like, can we get the guards to make him stop. etc.  the fact that the idea was rebuffed instantly means that it was nothing but wishful thinking anyway.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 06 juin 2013 - 06:18 .

[IanPolaris]

Hazegurl wrote...

I don't even think the concept exist. Guards are just around to maintain order. I see no proof of the elves suggesting they should talk to the guards as a sign that a noble would be arrested and taken to court and tried for his crimes. More like, can we get the guards to make him stop. etc.  the fact that the idea was rebuffed instantly means that it was nothing but wishful thinking anyway.

The Magister's Son quest in DA2 says Hi.  In that we clearly find that even elves do technically have the rights of due process and thus the overall concept of human rights does exist.  Implementation is lousy, but the concepts and ideals are there.

-Polaris

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Hazegurl wrote...

I don't even think the concept exist. Guards are just around to maintain order. I see no proof of the elves suggesting they should talk to the guards as a sign that a noble would be arrested and taken to court and tried for his crimes. More like, can we get the guards to make him stop. etc.  the fact that the idea was rebuffed instantly means that it was nothing but wishful thinking anyway.

At the very least, everyone in Ferelden seems to agree that slavery is immoral. Notwithstanding that it doesn't help you win the Landsmeet as much some of the other arguments do due to the way the score is tabulated, slavery is (to my understanding) considered a persuasive argument in the Landsmeet.

[IanPolaris]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

I don't even think the concept exist. Guards are just around to maintain order. I see no proof of the elves suggesting they should talk to the guards as a sign that a noble would be arrested and taken to court and tried for his crimes. More like, can we get the guards to make him stop. etc.  the fact that the idea was rebuffed instantly means that it was nothing but wishful thinking anyway.

At the very least, everyone in Ferelden seems to agree that slavery is immoral. Notwithstanding that it doesn't help you win the Landsmeet as much some of the other arguments do due to the way the score is tabulated, slavery is (to my understanding) considered a persuasive argument in the Landsmeet.

That is my recollection as well.  Everyone seems genuinely shocked and dismayed to learn that Loghain was working with slavers.

-Polaris

[Hazegurl]

IanPolaris wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

I don't even think the concept exist. Guards are just around to maintain order. I see no proof of the elves suggesting they should talk to the guards as a sign that a noble would be arrested and taken to court and tried for his crimes. More like, can we get the guards to make him stop. etc.  the fact that the idea was rebuffed instantly means that it was nothing but wishful thinking anyway.

The Magister's Son quest in DA2 says Hi.  In that we clearly find that even elves do technically have the rights of due process and thus the overall concept of human rights does exist.  Implementation is lousy, but the concepts and ideals are there.

-Polaris

Thanks for proving my point. Aveline's guards are there to keep a child murder safe because he is a Magister's son.  That Elf father had no rights whatsoever and if Hawke never showed up that murderer would have just been taken home to daddy to kill again..by the guards themselves.

[Hazegurl]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

I don't even think the concept exist. Guards are just around to maintain order. I see no proof of the elves suggesting they should talk to the guards as a sign that a noble would be arrested and taken to court and tried for his crimes. More like, can we get the guards to make him stop. etc.  the fact that the idea was rebuffed instantly means that it was nothing but wishful thinking anyway.

At the very least, everyone in Ferelden seems to agree that slavery is immoral. Notwithstanding that it doesn't help you win the Landsmeet as much some of the other arguments do due to the way the score is tabulated, slavery is (to my understanding) considered a persuasive argument in the Landsmeet.

Right, you can bring up the slavers as saying "Look at the bad thing Loghain was involved in" to stack the deck against him. So it is considered morally wrong. But you ain't winning no Landsmeet based on this and Loghain can quickly gain victory if the Warden doesn't have noble support.

[IanPolaris]

Hazegurl wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

I don't even think the concept exist. Guards are just around to maintain order. I see no proof of the elves suggesting they should talk to the guards as a sign that a noble would be arrested and taken to court and tried for his crimes. More like, can we get the guards to make him stop. etc.  the fact that the idea was rebuffed instantly means that it was nothing but wishful thinking anyway.

The Magister's Son quest in DA2 says Hi.  In that we clearly find that even elves do technically have the rights of due process and thus the overall concept of human rights does exist.  Implementation is lousy, but the concepts and ideals are there.

-Polaris

Thanks for proving my point. Aveline's guards are there to keep a child murder safe because he is a Magister's son.  That Elf father had no rights whatsoever and if Hawke never showed up that murderer would have just been taken home to daddy to kill again..by the guards themselves.

Nope.  You are missing my point.  The Elf Father should have had a reasonable right to due process, but isn't getting it because the Magister is misusing his power.  This means that the concept of due process and law (and human rights) is clearly there.  That is something you seem unable or unwilling to admit.  I am not talking about the execution of it, merely the concept.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Hazegurl wrote...

Right, you can bring up the slavers as saying "Look at the bad thing Loghain was involved in" to stack the deck against him. So it is considered morally wrong. But you ain't winning no Landsmeet based on this and Loghain can quickly gain victory if the Warden doesn't have noble support.

Actually you can win the Landsmeet using this argument.  It is considered a net gain for your side.  It's not as effective as some other options (proving that Loghain let a bloodmage go free is the best one), but it's not a negative.

-Polaris

[Hazegurl]

IanPolaris wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

I don't even think the concept exist. Guards are just around to maintain order. I see no proof of the elves suggesting they should talk to the guards as a sign that a noble would be arrested and taken to court and tried for his crimes. More like, can we get the guards to make him stop. etc.  the fact that the idea was rebuffed instantly means that it was nothing but wishful thinking anyway.

The Magister's Son quest in DA2 says Hi.  In that we clearly find that even elves do technically have the rights of due process and thus the overall concept of human rights does exist.  Implementation is lousy, but the concepts and ideals are there.

-Polaris

Thanks for proving my point. Aveline's guards are there to keep a child murder safe because he is a Magister's son.  That Elf father had no rights whatsoever and if Hawke never showed up that murderer would have just been taken home to daddy to kill again..by the guards themselves.

Nope.  You are missing my point.  The Elf Father should have had a reasonable right to due process, but isn't getting it because the Magister is misusing his power.  This means that the concept of due process and law (and human rights) is clearly there.  That is something you seem unable or unwilling to admit.  I am not talking about the execution of it, merely the concept.

-Polaris

Maybe I'm taking the meanings a little too literally. The way I see it a concept is nothing more than an abstract idea so when you claim that the elf father has a right to "due process" which is something that actually exists by the law then I have to disagree to a degree.  Regardless, it's all irrelevant. I can't hold a bunch of medieval people up to the definition of law and human rights we have today.  Unless the DA series takes us all the way into some sort of present day world, nobody is getting any rights anytime soon.

[IanPolaris]

Hazegurl wrote...

Regardless, it's all irrelevant. I can't hold a bunch of medieval people up to the definition of law and human rights we have today.  Unless the DA series takes us all the way into some sort of present day world, nobody is getting any rights anytime soon.

We can because the fictional game world (written for modern players) invites us to do just that, not once but repeatedly.

-Polaris

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Hazegurl wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

I don't even think the concept exist. Guards are just around to maintain order. I see no proof of the elves suggesting they should talk to the guards as a sign that a noble would be arrested and taken to court and tried for his crimes. More like, can we get the guards to make him stop. etc.  the fact that the idea was rebuffed instantly means that it was nothing but wishful thinking anyway.

At the very least, everyone in Ferelden seems to agree that slavery is immoral. Notwithstanding that it doesn't help you win the Landsmeet as much some of the other arguments do due to the way the score is tabulated, slavery is (to my understanding) considered a persuasive argument in the Landsmeet.

Right, you can bring up the slavers as saying "Look at the bad thing Loghain was involved in" to stack the deck against him. So it is considered morally wrong. But you ain't winning no Landsmeet based on this and Loghain can quickly gain victory if the Warden doesn't have noble support.

Actually, if I understand the scoring correctly Anora and this argument by themselves add up to the quota of points you need for the Landsmeet. You can win bringing by bringing this up.

Edit: In addition to which, the original point is that the concept exists. Even if bringing this up isn't the politically best move, everyone adknowledges Loghain did wrong.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 06 juin 2013 - 08:40 .

[Abraham_uk]

Plaintiff wrote...

Abraham_uk wrote...
Wanting to rid the world of mages seems necessary. Simply because mages literally are that dangerous. They have incredible power that they literally can't control. The world of Theadas would be safer without them.

It will never happen. Even if you kill every living mage (an impossible task), more are born every day. It's a random trait that can occur in anyone.

If the writers didn't want anyone to come to that conclusion, then why is it that nearly every mage we encounter is hostile?

Nearly every single person you encounter is hostile. So it follows that we should just kill everybody, yes?

Why is there no examples of magic being used to aid farmers.
Help construct buildings with telekinesis.
I'm sure magic could have it's uses in manufacturing.

Because the Chantry forbids Circle mages from interacting with the outside world except in rare circumstances, and any apostate who uses their magic to help people risks being attacked by bigoted villagers, or being captured by Templars and dragged off to the Circle, with optional sides of beating and rape.

How the hell do you manage to play two entire games and not notice that?

Okay magic is used to cure diseases.

Not legally it's not. Anders is forced to operate an illegal clinic in the goddamn sewer. Because the Chantry doesn't allow mages to help anyone.

But come on. Mostly combat. So forgive me for thinking that mages are walking nuclear bombs. Because that is pretty much how they're portrayed.

Yeah, and it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the only time the Chantry allows mages to use magic outside the Circle is when they have use for it's military applications. Like when they need them to fight the Qunari, or the Darkspawn.

Unless I see more positive examples or at least more non-combat examples of magic and mages, I'm going to unleash my inner Fenris on every mage in Theadas.

How ironic that you should idolise Fenris, an individual who also uses his unique powers for purely violent purposes.

By your own criteria, Fenris clearly deserves to die. Are you going to brutally murder him also? Or are you just a giant hypocrite?

I was a little more cheesed off that we only see magic used for combat.
I feel that if there is going to be a more balanced debate on whether or not use of magic is a good idea, then we need to see a broad spectrum of uses of magic. We need to see the good and the bad. The usefulness in day to day life. Perhaps visit a place where magic isn't illegal. Tivinter Empire can't be the only place where magic is legal.

You raise a good point about Fenris. His lyrium tattoes do seem to undermine his hatred of mages. It is made further ironic if you are a mage who romances Fenris.

In campaign I actually support mages simply because I want to believe there is more to magic in Theadas than just combat and the occasional healer.

By the way. I'm not partically large or tall. So that makes me a small hypocrite:lol:.

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 06 juin 2013 - 08:50 .

[Gyrefalcon]

Seraph Cross wrote...

The real problem is that there isn't enough moral grayness on both sides. There are too many close minded zealots on the templar side. While the mages have too many blood mages.

I think you have it.  We keep seeing the worst of both sides.  The team said they wanted to put more moderate mages in DA2 but there wasn't time.  Hopefully DA3 with it's focus on the Mage-Templar war will show us the good, the bad, and the depth of the struggle.

OP:  Gaider specified that Justice was not a demon.  The book Asunder shows interaction by mages with spirits that aren't demons.  However, there is the question of whether or not Justice, influenced by the imperfections of the world around it and by inhabiting an imperfect human, wound up becoming corrupted into a demon.  And if he left that body/this world would he be restored to his pure state in the Fade?