1081 réponses à ce sujet

[Sainna]

I am pretty sure the harvester was originally not to be added? But then someone complained that mage supporters would have to fight only 1 boss, while templars would get more or somesuch.
So they had to let him go bat**** crazy and ignore everything the PC has said or done x)

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...
Again, I must refer to the part about unfalsifiable hypotheses being worthless. Also, they were referring to the whole game, not just those two instances.

All of your poitns in this thread have been worthless and off-topic.
Take your own advice then and don't bother posting them.

LobselVith8 wrote...

It would help if the depiction of
mage antagonists made sense in terms of storytelling. Having Decimus
think that my apostate Hawke and his moiety crew were templars didn't
make much sense

As many stated before - not really.
You don't have to be dressed in templar regalia to be a tempalr or be a mecenary/assasin for the templars.
Also, Decimus was a bit unhinged.

[Iakus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Again, I must refer to the part about unfalsifiable hypotheses being worthless. Also, they were referring to the whole game, not just those two instances.

All of your poitns in this thread have been worthless and off-topic.
Take your own advice then and don't bother posting them.

Will you two just get it over with and kiss?  

[billy the squid]

Morocco Mole wrote...

iakus wrote...
Do you seriously believe mages wouldn't stoop to those methods?

Mages are little angels that are wrongly opressed and

Shhhh! You're stealing Xil's thunder!

[Xilizhra]

Do you seriously believe mages wouldn't stoop to those methods?

Well, using blood magic isn't inherently evil. Everything else will be the work of unsanctioned renegades that we had around even before the war.

[Iakus]

Sainna wrote...

I am pretty sure the harvester was originally not to be added? But then someone complained that mage supporters would have to fight only 1 boss, while templars would get more or somesuch.
So they had to let him go bat**** crazy and ignore everything the PC has said or done x)

I thought I'd heard that if you backed the mages Orsino could be talked down,. or somesuch.

Might be misremembering.

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Do you seriously believe mages wouldn't stoop to those methods?

Well, using blood magic isn't inherently evil. Everything else will be the work of unsanctioned renegades that we had around even before the war.

As opposed to "sanctioned renegades"? 

What I'm asking is, if things got bad enough, that some mages wouldn't stoop to executing civilians, conquest through force of arms, mind control, etc, for "the greater good"?

If templars are capable of such great evil, why aren't mages?

[billy the squid]

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Do you seriously believe mages wouldn't stoop to those methods?

Well, using blood magic isn't inherently evil. Everything else will be the work of unsanctioned renegades that we had around even before the war.

As opposed to "sanctioned renegades"? 

What I'm asking is, if things got bad enough, that some mages wouldn't stoop to executing civilians, conquest through force of arms, mind control, etc, for "the greater good"?

If templars are capable of such great evil, why aren't mages?

Keep repeating "Mages are little angels that are wrongly opressed" and you'll get to Xil's reasoning in the end.

[Melca36]

Sainna wrote...

I am pretty sure the harvester was originally not to be added? But then someone complained that mage supporters would have to fight only 1 boss, while templars would get more or somesuch.
So they had to let him go bat**** crazy and ignore everything the PC has said or done x)

It was said by the some of the developers that the harvester was added for a 2nd BOSS FIGHT.

Its been also said....the game went overboards on the crazy blood mages stuff which sadly conditioned alot of people to falsely assume all mages were evil. 

[Xilizhra]

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Do you seriously believe mages wouldn't stoop to those methods?

Well, using blood magic isn't inherently evil. Everything else will be the work of unsanctioned renegades that we had around even before the war.

As opposed to "sanctioned renegades"? 

What I'm asking is, if things got bad enough, that some mages wouldn't stoop to executing civilians, conquest through force of arms, mind control, etc, for "the greater good"?

If templars are capable of such great evil, why aren't mages?

They might, but the difference is that the templars are institutionally driven to it, whereas the mages aren't.

[Sainna]

Melca36 wrote...

Sainna wrote...

I am pretty sure the harvester was originally not to be added? But then someone complained that mage supporters would have to fight only 1 boss, while templars would get more or somesuch.
So they had to let him go bat**** crazy and ignore everything the PC has said or done x)

It was said by the some of the developers that the harvester was added for a 2nd BOSS FIGHT.

Its been also said....the game went overboards on the crazy blood mages stuff which sadly conditioned alot of people to falsely assume all mages were evil. 

Was it not reasoned with the Veil being very thin in that city and where the mages where kept especially? 
So when the templars pushed, it was easyer to drive the mages into the hands of demons.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Do you seriously believe mages wouldn't stoop to those methods?

Well, using blood magic isn't inherently evil. Everything else will be the work of unsanctioned renegades that we had around even before the war.

As opposed to "sanctioned renegades"? 

What I'm asking is, if things got bad enough, that some mages wouldn't stoop to executing civilians, conquest through force of arms, mind control, etc, for "the greater good"?

If templars are capable of such great evil, why aren't mages?

They might, but the difference is that the templars are institutionally driven to it, whereas the mages aren't.

Another difference is that the mages could do more damage if they lose their way.

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Do you seriously believe mages wouldn't stoop to those methods?

Well, using blood magic isn't inherently evil. Everything else will be the work of unsanctioned renegades that we had around even before the war.

As opposed to "sanctioned renegades"? 

What I'm asking is, if things got bad enough, that some mages wouldn't stoop to executing civilians, conquest through force of arms, mind control, etc, for "the greater good"?

If templars are capable of such great evil, why aren't mages?

They might, but the difference is that the templars are institutionally driven to it, whereas the mages aren't.

Are they?

Citation needed

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It would help if the depiction of mage antagonists made sense in terms of storytelling. Having Decimus think that my apostate Hawke and his moiety crew were templars didn't make much sense

As many stated before - not really.
You don't have to be dressed in templar regalia to be a tempalr or be a mecenary/assasin for the templars.
Also, Decimus was a bit unhinged.

In New Vegas, bringing Boone with the Courier can cause a vengeful member of the Great Khans to immediately attack you, because he recognizes his attire as part of the NCR. In Dragon Age II, there's simply no excuse for having Decimus think that Hawke and his companions are templars - especially if Merrill is among his group, given the very bitter and antagonistic relationship that the Dalish have with the templars, who actively hunt them down.

As for Decimus, I found him ridiculous. Dragon Age II was full of terrible examples of the abuses of magic because the people who did such acts were psychoatic lunatics. It makes the dichotomy pointless when the countless examples are right out of Arkham Asylum. It was handled better in Origins, where we witnessed Connor unknowingly make a deal with a Desire Demon in complete ignorance of what demons actually were. Then again, Origins also had more fleshed out templars like Ser Bryant, the Lothering templars, Ser Otto, and Knight-Commander Greagoir.

[TK514]

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Hugh

A Templar who doesn't wear traditional Templar armor, just for an in-game example. I have no idea why he doesn't to be honest. The Templars are a military order, and uniforms aren't usually optional. I thought it might just be an XBox thing, but apparently it is across all platforms, and hasn't been corrected in any of the patches, so as far as we know it's intentional.

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...
In New Vegas, bringing Boone with the Courier can cause a vengeful member of the Great Khans to immediately attack you, because he recognizes his attire as part of the NCR. In Dragon Age II, there's simply no excuse for having Decimus think that Hawke and his companions are templars - especially if Merrill is among his group, given the very bitter and antagonistic relationship that the Dalish have with the templars, who actively hunt them down.

There is, however, exiled dalish living in Alienages who have great experience in tracking. It's not a stretch that one such elf could have been recruited to track down a notoriously difficult to find group of apostates without phylacteries.

As for Decimus, I found him ridiculous. Dragon Age II was full of terrible examples of the abuses of magic because the people who did such acts were psychoatic lunatics. It makes the dichotomy pointless when the countless examples are right out of Arkham Asylum. It was handled better in Origins, where we witnessed Connor unknowingly make a deal with a Desire Demon in complete ignorance of what demons actually were. Then again, Origins also had more fleshed out templars like Ser Bryant, the Lothering templars, Ser Otto, and Knight-Commander Greagoir.

This however, I think is fair.
Decimus could have been so much better if he rationally and calmly explained that while it was possible Hawke and co was not actively working for the templars, he could not risk them living to tell the templars (willingly or not). That way he comes across as desperate, not crazy, and it neatly solves the problem you outlined above and still dies by your hand (setting the stage for Grace later).

[LobselVith8]

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Again, I must refer to the part about unfalsifiable hypotheses being worthless. Also, they were referring to the whole game, not just those two instances. 

Do you seriously believe mages wouldn't stoop to those methods? 

No one doubts that mages can do heinous things. Tevinter alone proves that there are mages who are willing to do horrific things to other people (including other mages), but the issue becomes whether the Chantry controlled Circles should be the solution, or are part of another problem entirely when it comes to the issue of magic in Thedas. That's the crux of the matter with people who side with the mages - we see the Circles under Chantry and templar control as part of the problem.

[KiwiQuiche]

Blood Magic isn't inherently evil, as seen with Merrill. However it can be used for bad things, such as even swords can be.

One edge of the sword can be used to hurt, maim and threaten. While the other edge can be used to fight, defend and protect. Just as any other tool can be.

[Nole]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Blood Magic isn't inherently evil, as seen with Merrill. However it can be used for bad things, such as even swords can be.

One edge of the sword can be used to hurt, maim and threaten. While the other edge can be used to fight, defend and protect. Just as any other tool can be.

A sword can't blow up entire towns in a matter of seconds.

[KiwiQuiche]

WittingEight65 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Blood Magic isn't inherently evil, as seen with Merrill. However it can be used for bad things, such as even swords can be.

One edge of the sword can be used to hurt, maim and threaten. While the other edge can be used to fight, defend and protect. Just as any other tool can be.

A sword can't blow up entire towns in a matter of seconds.

It can still kill a hundred people.

[Iakus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

No one doubts that mages can do heinous things. Tevinter alone proves that there are mages who are willing to do horrific things to other people (including other mages), but the issue becomes whether the Chantry controlled Circles should be the solution, or are part of another problem entirely when it comes to the issue of magic in Thedas. That's the crux of the matter with people who side with the mages - we see the Circles under Chantry and templar control as part of the problem.

I think at this point it's pretty clear the Circles failed twice.  Both in Tevinter and the rest of Thedas.

However, that doesn't mean a new solution needn't be sought.  I hold that the fears of the templars are valid, even if their methods are not.

[Il Divo]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

WittingEight65 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Blood Magic isn't inherently evil, as seen with Merrill. However it can be used for bad things, such as even swords can be.

One edge of the sword can be used to hurt, maim and threaten. While the other edge can be used to fight, defend and protect. Just as any other tool can be.

A sword can't blow up entire towns in a matter of seconds.

It can still kill a hundred people.

This misses a few critical details.  Yes, a sword can kill a hundred people. But is it likely that a sword will kill a hundred people? Probably not. Not in one shot, anyway. One fireball can take care of how many in one shot? You want to kill a hundred people via sword, unless you plan on being stealthy, you better have some ungodly skill with the weapon.

What you're suggesting is like saying that because an atomic bomb and a knife can both theoretically achieve the same kill count, that we should not look at the former as a more efficient tool for the process. All tools are not created equal.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 juin 2013 - 10:37 .

[KiwiQuiche]

Il Divo wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

WittingEight65 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Blood Magic isn't inherently evil, as seen with Merrill. However it can be used for bad things, such as even swords can be.

One edge of the sword can be used to hurt, maim and threaten. While the other edge can be used to fight, defend and protect. Just as any other tool can be.

A sword can't blow up entire towns in a matter of seconds.

It can still kill a hundred people.

This misses a few critical details.  Yes, a sword can kill a hundred people. But is it likely that a sword will kill a hundred people? Probably not. Not in one shot, anyway. One fireball can take care of how many in one shot?

What you're suggesting is like saying that because an atomic bomb and a knife can both theoretically achieve the same kill count, that we should not look at the former as a more efficient tool for the process. All tools are not created equal.

Swords/nukes/knives aren't people. People are not senseless, unfeeling tools. Unless they are Tranquil.

That and it wasn't the point of my comparision.