1081 réponses à ce sujet

[TK514]

A Templar may need to profess Andrastian faith to join the order, but they don't actually have to believe. Their skills and abilities are not Faith based, like a D&D paladin's, but stem from training. You don't even have to believe that all Mages are a threat that must be contained and quarantined at any cost. Money, glory, ambition, self-discovery, and so on, all viable reasons for joining and excelling in the Order that don't necessarily have anything to do with Faith, or even Mages.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

I thought it was painfully obvious, which is why I made a joke about it. Since we don't currently have a draft going, the Army (I know there are non-combat roles, but even those need to have some combat training, IIRC) consists solely of people patriotic enough to die and kill for their country, which is a major personality trait in and of itself. Similarly, the templar codex entry explicitly says they filter out moral people who might ask awkward questions and prefer zealots who'll do anything their masters tell them.

No it doesn't.
I'ts funny how much you like to fill in the blank with your own ideas and views. Why not quopte the exact bit, and not use your own, twisted wording htat completely skews the point?

And no, it's not painfull obvious. It's retarded.
Templars can come from different countries. They have different cultural backgrounds. The one thing they share is that they are andrastian, which in itself is irrelevant.

Got it. I thus task you to write something sympathetic from a magister's point of view.

That seems something that would fit in your alley better.

[Lotion Soronarr]

More on topic:

Waht DA:I needs is to better show the dangers of magic...without templars. Because pro-mages will blame everything on the templar/Chantry.

People fear mages? It *MUST* be Chantry propaganda, becaue Maker knows there is absolutely NO reason to fear mages whatsoever without it.

Connor was a good example, but mage supporters again blame the Chantry.

We need to see good, sensible mages making horrible mistakes and fraking up everyone around. We needs to see just how dangerous and tempting blood magic is.
With the mages in DA:I out of the Circles and with no restrictions, this is a perfect opportunity.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I thought it was painfully obvious, which is why I made a joke about it. Since we don't currently have a draft going, the Army (I know there are non-combat roles, but even those need to have some combat training, IIRC) consists solely of people patriotic enough to die and kill for their country, which is a major personality trait in and of itself. Similarly, the templar codex entry explicitly says they filter out moral people who might ask awkward questions and prefer zealots who'll do anything their masters tell them.

No it doesn't.
I'ts funny how much you like to fill in the blank with your own ideas and views. Why not quopte the exact bit, and not use your own, twisted wording htat completely skews the point?

While mages often resent the templars as symbols of the Chantry's control over magic, the people of Thedas see them as saviors and holy warriors, champions of all that is good, armed with piety enough to protect the world from the ravages of foul magic. In reality, the Chantry's militant arm looks first for skilled warriors with unshakable faith in the Maker, with a flawless moral center as a secondary concern. Templars must carry out their duty with an emotional distance, and the Order of Templars prefers soldiers with religious fervor and absolute loyalty over paragons of virtue who might question orders when it comes time to make difficult choices.

She is not completely skewing the point, she is merely showing noticable bias. While I agree that she is going over the top, she has the basic idea of what she's discussing right: the priests prefer Templars to leave the moral judgements to the priests.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 12 juin 2013 - 07:01 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

That's exactly what I said.

She is going over the top and skewing the portraly...even tough it is OBVIOUS that ANY military organization (heck, any organization - period) will value obedience.

So it's redicolosu that templars are singled out becuse they value obedience.

[Ausstig]

Peer of the Empire wrote...

Templars rule

Annd Mages Drule 

right?

[Sir JK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

More on topic:

Waht DA:I needs is to better show the dangers of magic...without templars. Because pro-mages will blame everything on the templar/Chantry.

People fear mages? It *MUST* be Chantry propaganda, becaue Maker knows there is absolutely NO reason to fear mages whatsoever without it.

Connor was a good example, but mage supporters again blame the Chantry.

We need to see good, sensible mages making horrible mistakes and fraking up everyone around. We needs to see just how dangerous and tempting blood magic is.
With the mages in DA:I out of the Circles and with no restrictions, this is a perfect opportunity.

I'm not so sure about this.
Magic's dangers need to be shown, yes. But does it need to be shown more? We've already seen some of it in DAO and DA2. Both the dangers of not being educated (Connor), what significant stress and/or a weakened veil can do (Olivia) and how easily blood magic lends itself to abuse (the Baroness).
What I am lacking is abusing magic in general to get an advantage in common life (A mage turning to magic in fear of a innkeep that threatens to kill him if he does not pay, leading to the inkeep thinking the mage will burn down his inn to avoid paying.or manipulating the mind of a love interest that's not interested and similar).
But it does not need to be a lot of it. I do not think the dangers of magic need to be hammered home more. Present, yes. But not more.

Instead I think that the best way to make the conflict relatively grey is, as has been mentioned in this very thread, de-villify the templars as a whole (but not all). They need their Alrik's, but they need more of their Gregoir's, Ser Otto's, Ser Bryant's and so forth. People that do their duty without malice. Not out to harm, imprison or control mages. Merely protect them and others. Having separated from the Chantry not because "Must. Imprison. Mages" but because of a genuine belief that the current course will lead to society crumbling around them and/or that the risk to mundanes is too great.

Then, once that is established, people can make up their own minds. I don't think there's any need to villify any one side further. Not mages. Not templars. Showing the abuses and mistakes of both, but not making their presentation focus on that.

Modifié par Sir JK, 12 juin 2013 - 07:38 .

[Dave of Canada]

Sir JK wrote...

Magic's dangers need to be shown, yes. But does it need to be shown more? We've already seen some of it in DAO and DA2. Both the dangers of not being educated (Connor), what significant stress and/or a weakened veil can do (Olivia) and how easily blood magic lends itself to abuse (the Baroness).

I'd like to see something apparent like Connor but without the "free him and no-one blames him" option, I'd love something which rubs the player the wrong way.

An example:
Perhaps you'd discover a child mage surrounded by a mob, he's about to be hung by a noose and you can interfere and protect him.

Upon returning later, you discover the child--due to not having anywhere to go due to the Circle rebellion--had become possessed with no-one around to protect him, causing him to slaughter the community and escape. The surviving townfolks blame you for saving the child's life. Perhaps you can hunt down the child, about to slay the abomination and have the demon play with your mind by switching back to it's child form and begging for mercy (aka DA2's Keeper).

It's the Meredith's sister scenario but actually shown to the player, rubbed in with a bit "The Circle needs to come back/The Order needs to come back" stance. The pro-Templar player is reaffirmed that mages are dangerous, the pro-Mage player is reaffirmed that mages can't have total freedom (despite the usual complaint that not everyone advocates it, there's still some which do) and the alternative scenario isn't any prettier,  letting the angry mob execute a child who hasn't done anything yet.

There's no "win" and allows you to see the perspective of the mundanes and the perspective of the mage who was being prosecuted before doing something. Hell, you could deem the entire situation irrelevant and leave the child to it's fate without contemplating it.

Could rub in the Templar stance by having someone like Cullen actually support stopping the mob because his duty is about protecting mages.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 12 juin 2013 - 07:41 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Again, only one of those two are Templar, the other is a Seeker (completely different order).

And even if they are, there's still a large discrepancy, even if you count Alistar. We've been exposed to many different views from different mages that we have gotten to know, from Morrigan to Bethany, on Circles, the Fade and a host of other things.

Are you truly unable to see the issue there, if you just compare mages and templar?

Again, the templars are more or less homogenous, while the mages are not. Biological conditions will always have more variance than organizations; you'll find more diverse personalities among left-handed people than in the US Army.

Dafuq did I just read?....
You obviously dont know **** about what you are talking about, so just stop talking. Right now. That would be best.

[Lotion Soronarr]

@SirK - I didnt' say show more, I said showed DIFFERNETLY.

Alsmot all of instances of mages abusing their powers in DA2 were templar related.

That way the pro-mage/chantry-hating player always falls back to "See? The mage ONLY did this because the tempalrs/Chantry. If it weren't for them he would never do X." even if that is only one way to look at it and/or isn't true.

Pretty much everything a mage does is blamed on the Chantry/Templars.
Hell, the entire reason people fear and mistrust mages is blamed on the Chantry.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Bleh. Templars.

As far as I am concerned, Templars & the Chantry are no different than the Thalmor & Aldmeri Dominon in Skyrim. Going around imposing their ideas and will because they think its right and because the think they can get away with it

[MichaelStuart]

The only perspective I wish to see is mine.

[Asdrubael Vect]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

More on topic:

Waht DA:I needs is to better show the dangers of magic...without templars. Because pro-mages will blame everything on the templar/Chantry.

People fear mages? It *MUST* be Chantry propaganda, becaue Maker knows there is absolutely NO reason to fear mages whatsoever without it.

Connor was a good example, but mage supporters again blame the Chantry.

We need to see good, sensible mages making horrible mistakes and fraking up everyone around. We needs to see just how dangerous and tempting blood magic is.
With the mages in DA:I out of the Circles and with no restrictions, this is a perfect opportunity.

i dare you peoples stop representing poor Connor as example of evil magic and not controled mages

Connor situations was a result of

1)Chantry laws who not allow any mages(and their childrens to) to have any rights, be nobles and having lands and to live in non-circles....Connor was the only son of Eamon, so if Chantry would know that his son is a mage so this would be a destruction of Eamon Family

2)Isolda and Eamon fears of  Chantry Circle life(Harrowing,Tranquil, Templars opressions)....this is why Eamon himself send Connor to study in Tevinter

3)Logain actions who send apostage blood mage Jowan to kill Eamon....after Eamon was poisoned by Magic poison our poor Connor find Jowan books(without them Connor would never do his ritual) and tryed to summon demon to save his beloved father from death and protect his family, and he is doing that pretty well for 6 year old boy without any serius magic teachings and any experiense with demons....demon protect his father from death and other family members, even summon a army of dead what can posibly protect them from Darkspawns, the only problem was that Connor not do his deal right, but what you expected from the 6 year old boy

....without Connor, Eamon would be dead and we would never can deal with Logain and have a Ferelden army to deal with Darkspawns

[Xilizhra]

We need to see good, sensible mages making horrible mistakes and fraking up everyone around. We needs to see just how dangerous and tempting blood magic is.
With the mages in DA:I out of the Circles and with no restrictions, this is a perfect opportunity.

Silly. For one thing, you're conflating the Chantry and the templars when they no longer have the same goals. For another, with the templars prosecuting war against the mages, they're still being heavily affected by templar tyranny, they can just fight back now. And finally, literally every single suggestion you make drips with the bias you claim to be trying to avoid.

That's exactly what I said.

She is going over the top and skewing the portraly...even tough it is OBVIOUS that ANY military organization (heck, any organization - period) will value obedience.

So it's redicolosu that templars are singled out becuse they value obedience.

They also explicitly don't want moral people, or at least not highly moral people.

I'd like to see something apparent like Connor but without the "free him and no-one blames him" option, I'd love something which rubs the player the wrong way.

An example:
Perhaps you'd discover a child mage surrounded by a mob, he's about to be hung by a noose and you can interfere and protect him.

Upon returning later, you discover the child--due to not having anywhere to go due to the Circle rebellion--had become possessed with no-one around to protect him, causing him to slaughter the community and escape. The surviving townfolks blame you for saving the child's life. Perhaps you can hunt down the child, about to slay the abomination and have the demon play with your mind by switching back to it's child form and begging for mercy (aka DA2's Keeper).

It's the Meredith's sister scenario but actually shown to the player, rubbed in with a bit "The Circle needs to come back/The Order needs to come back" stance. The pro-Templar player is reaffirmed that mages are dangerous, the pro-Mage player is reaffirmed that mages can't have total freedom (despite the usual complaint that not everyone advocates it, there's still some which do) and the alternative scenario isn't any prettier, letting the angry mob execute a child who hasn't done anything yet.

There's no "win" and allows you to see the perspective of the mundanes and the perspective of the mage who was being prosecuted before doing something. Hell, you could deem the entire situation irrelevant and leave the child to it's fate without contemplating it.

Could rub in the Templar stance by having someone like Cullen actually support stopping the mob because his duty is about protecting mages.

Just bring the kid back to your castle; hell, if you have no mage subordinates who stay at the castle itself, you can leave a mage party member behind there to ensure that nothing bad happens to the kid. Your setup for this scenario is on the contrived side.

Instead I think that the best way to make the conflict relatively grey is, as has been mentioned in this very thread, de-villify the templars as a whole (but not all). They need their Alrik's, but they need more of their Gregoir's, Ser Otto's, Ser Bryant's and so forth. People that do their duty without malice. Not out to harm, imprison or control mages. Merely protect them and others. Having separated from the Chantry not because "Must. Imprison. Mages" but because of a genuine belief that the current course will lead to society crumbling around them and/or that the risk to mundanes is too great.

So, basically the templars who are no longer in the templars and have probably hopped over to the Seeker side because they're not trying to wage war on the entirety of magekind?

That seems something that would fit in your alley better.

Very well, I'll work on this.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 12 juin 2013 - 11:41 .

[The Elder King]

Eamon didn't send Connor to Tevinter, he sent him to the Circle. Connor went to Tevinter after his Harrowing.

[Asdrubael Vect]

The Sin wrote...

Bleh. Templars.

As far as I am concerned, Templars & the Chantry are no different than the Thalmor & Aldmeri Dominon in Skyrim. Going around imposing their ideas and will because they think its right and because the think they can get away with it

PS Empire was a reason why Aldmeri Dominion alience was founded to protect their lands, and Thalmor was founded in Valenwood dynasty to protect Valenwood from Cyrodill, now Thalmor convince Sammerset Kings to restore Dominon after Oblivion crisis 

and Emplre with their 500 Blades and their imperial spyes in Dominion Valenwood and breach of Allesians treaties was a reason to Concorad and after to a"great war"(this war was supposed to just conquer south of Hammerfel,)

[Hazegurl]

Dark Korsar wrote...

1)Chantry laws who not allow any mages(and their childrens to) to have any rights, be nobles and having lands and to live in non-circles....Connor was the only son of Eamon, so if Chantry would know that his son is a mage so this would be a destruction of Eamon Family

So noble arrogance isn't the blame? Nobles thinking they shoould be held above the law weren't the problem here? Okay.

2)Isolda and Eamon fears of  Chantry Circle life(Harrowing,Tranquil, Templars opressions)....this is why Eamon himself send Connor to study in Tevinter

Really? or perhaps he sent his son to Tevinter cause he had the money and that was his little "get out of jail free" card for his son

3)Logain actions who send apostage blood mage Jowan to kill Eamon....after Eamon was poisoned by Magic poison our poor Connor find Jowan books(without them Connor would never do his ritual) and tryed to summon demon to save his beloved father from death and protect his family, and he is doing that pretty well for 6 year old boy without any serius magic teachings and any experiense with demons....demon protect his father from death and other family members, even summon a army of dead what can posibly protect them from Darkspawns, the only problem was that Connor not do his deal right, but what you expected from the 6 year old boy

Templars kill blood mages so that young and ignorant mages like Connor doesn't come into contact with them and cause the level of destruction we saw in game. The Circle system would have prevented Loghain from using the services of a mage(jowan) for political gain.   The Connor quests are the perfect examples of what could happen with mages both politically or when they allow their desires to get the best of them.

....without Connor, Eamon would be dead and we would never can deal with Logain and have a Ferelden army to deal with Darkspawns

You mean without the Warden. I don't recall that boy sending the demon to hunt for the ashes.

[Ausstig]

Also DK, it was mostly Isolde being a dam idiot, Eamon has no problem (at least on screen) with Conner going to the circle.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...

[quote]We need to see good, sensible mages making horrible mistakes and fraking up everyone around. We needs to see just how dangerous and tempting blood magic is.
With the mages in DA:I out of the Circles and with no restrictions, this is a perfect opportunity.[/quote]

Silly. For one thing, you're conflating the Chantry and the templars when they no longer have the same goals. For another, with the templars prosecuting war against the mages, they're still being heavily affected by templar tyranny, they can just fight back now. And finally, literally every single suggestion you make drips with the bias you claim to be trying to avoid.[/quote]

You are the last person on the plnet who should be assuing anyone of bias.
You campaign agaisnt anything that might show templars in a better light.

And no, you don't get to decide the goals. The Tempalrs and the Chantry are still very compatible.


[quote]
[quote]That's exactly what I said.
She is going over the top and skewing the portraly...even tough it is OBVIOUS that ANY military organization (heck, any organization - period) will value obedience.

So it's redicolosu that templars are singled out becuse they value obedience. [/quote]
They also explicitly don't want moral people, or at least not highly moral people.[/quote]

Incorrect.
Where does it say tehy don't want moral people? Nowhere. It sez it's a SECONDARY criterion - which is VERY different from it being a negative or no criation at all.



[quote]
So, basically the templars who are no longer in the templars and have probably hopped over to the Seeker side because they're not trying to wage war on the entirety of magekind?[/qutoe]

Wrong again.
Extermination is not the goal and never was.

[Gilbert Salarian]

While Eamon has no objections on-screen for sending Connor to the Circle, he couldn't have been happy about it. That boy was his only heir, and since mages are not permitted to hold land or titles under Circle law Connor essentially becomes an illegitimate child. This was really the crux behind Isolde's decision.

Replace Jowan with Wynne and the situation *might* have turned out differently, though Eamon would still be without an heir.

[Plaintiff]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The Tempalrs and the Chantry are still very compatible.

The Templars obviously disagree, since they abandoned the Chantry.

[Master Shiori]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

THE QUESTION:
How to implement a better portrayl of the templar perspective.

There have been a few good broad suggestions. Maybe we could go deeper..with specific quest ideas, letters or similar stuff.

The best way, imo, is to show the dangers of magic by having templars actually deal with threats of possessed mages wrecking havoc on communities or similar tragedies. Situations where death and misery are a result of a mage losing control or his powers, rather than having him intentionaly go on a killing spree.

Also, we need more level headed templars in the game, like Cullen, who have first hand experience with what rogue mages can do, and who honestly believe they're serving the greater good rather than being sadists looking to get their kicks out of oppresing their charges.

In short, we need more situations that show the templars actually protecting the general populace from the dangers of magic, as opposed to standing guard over people who don't seem threatening in any way, and actually draw more simpathy from the average player than the templars themselves.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Plaintiff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The Tempalrs and the Chantry are still very compatible.

The Templars obviously disagree, since they abandoned the Chantry.

They left because of the corrupt Divine that betrayed them.
The refuse to take orders anymore, but Chantry as a whole, the goals and general outlook is still compatible.

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The Tempalrs and the Chantry are still very compatible.

The Templars obviously disagree, since they abandoned the Chantry.

It needs not be as clear cut as that. Lambert and his supporters have renounced the authority of the Divine for good reasons (she did betray them, killed several of their agents and severely impaired their ability to perform their duties) which doesn't mean Grand Clerics who sympathize with their case won't provide assistance and vice-versa.
Lambert's own thoughts show he has every intention to return to the service of the Chantry if the incompetent and traitorous Justinia V is removed from her position.

Modifié par MisterJB, 12 juin 2013 - 01:47 .