1081 réponses à ce sujet

[TK514]

Breaking from the Chantry was a secular decision, not a religious one. It's different from the Orlesian/Imperial schism because it isn't founded in interpreting doctrine in two fundamentally different ways.

In this case, the difference in opinion is how, not if, doctrine should be enforced.

And, after 900 years, I dare say there are more people than not in all three organizations (Chantry, Templars and Mages) who believe the exact same things regarding their faith.

Modifié par TK514, 12 juin 2013 - 01:55 .

[Plaintiff]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Pretty sure the Divine is the one who gets to choose how Chantry doctrine is interpreted and enforced, and Lambert's job is to bend over and deal with it.

[Asdrubael Vect]

Hazegurl wrote...

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.

 
1)what arroganse and held above the laws are you talking about? this is Orlais Chantry & Templars laws, why some one need to care about some White **** and her hypocrite priests(who still use blood mages for their political games) who having their own "saint" Templars who ruling Orlais and support their Emperrors and its expansion in other kingdoms and force them to live by their rules fro 800 years.

Ferelden already have their own Orlais king who have incest relationship with his brother Orlais emperror and who give his personal mage to "rule" Ferelden when he doing his perversions

..Eamon family is not just some nobles, they are сlose relatives of Ferelden King...and Connor or Rowan would be the next rulers if somethink would happen with Alister(and his childrens in 75% would be only mages because of his dragon, taint and Templar blood) and Anora(who cant have any childrens)

2)because this is a safety place for him when he would learn how to hide his powers or even maybe how to stand agains Templars, yes.

3)Jowan just teach him how to hide his powers and nothing more...the sourse of the problem was Jowan books(as we can understand this books was from Logain(who have relationship with enchanter Uldred and Tevinter slavers) who send Jowan to Isolde(who even without Jowan still can hire any ex-circle or non-circle apostage) what Connor find after Jowan poison Eamon and was inprison, and he read some informations from them and do his ritual to save his father

The Chantry Circle system was never work in Thedas and in Ferelden too( we see this with Maric and Logain who use it against Orlais, and when Logain use Uldred)

4)demon not heal Eamon completely but supported his life, without it Eamon would be dead before Warden would even come to Redcliff

and we technicly maybe can heal Eamon with powerfull magic(but unfortunately we did not have Dalish keeper or Tevinter magister) without  any Ashes

Modifié par Dark Korsar, 12 juin 2013 - 02:44 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Dark Korsar wrote...

1)what arroganse and held above the laws are you talking about? this is Orlais Chantry & Templars laws, why some one need to care about some White **** and her hypocrite priests(who still use blood mages for their political games) who having their own "saint" Templars who ruling Orlais and support their Emperrors and its expansion in other kingdoms and force them to live by their rules fro 800 years. 

Ferelden already have their own Orlais king who have incest relationship with his brother Orlais emperror and who give his personal mage to "rule" Ferelden when he doing his perversions

The fact remains that the Chantry's laws are the ones that apply here. Whether or not the priests are hypocrites, they're the ones who write the law as concerns mages.

[Dabrikishaw]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Honestly, I think DA2 handled both sides very poorly. The majority of templars are either cartoonishly evil rapists, stupid and incompetent, or possessed by demons to make them evil. Except for Cullen who is the only one who acts like a real person and not a caricature.

3 Templars. 3. Templars. Ser Alrik. Ser Karras. Knight-Commander Meredith Stannard. every other templar with a name is a decent person first and at worst an addict. Templars after that are random encounters, who are still following orders.

Modifié par Dabrikishaw, 12 juin 2013 - 07:54 .

[Hazegurl]

Dark Korsar wrote...
 
1)what arroganse and held above the laws are you talking about?

The law that states that mages are to be locked away in the circle. A law that these nobles...or noble lady saw fit to bypass thus causing the death of so many people.

..Eamon family is not just some nobles, they are сlose relatives of Ferelden King..

I'm sure all those dead people Connor killed will be happy to know that it wasn't just some peasant mage that did it.

2)because this is a safety place for him when he would learn how to hide his powers or even maybe how to stand agains Templars, yes.

No. Ask all those scared and dead people in Redcliffe if they felt safe.

3)Jowan just teach him how to hide his powers and nothing more...

Does not matter. Isolde should have taken him to the Circle or put him on a ship to Tevinter like his father did.

The Chantry Circle system was never work in Thedas and in Ferelden too( we see this with Maric and Logain who use it against Orlais, and when Logain use Uldred)

I don't recall Loghain using the circle against Orlais or him using Uldred.

4)demon not heal Eamon completely but supported his life, without it Eamon would be dead before Warden would even come to Redcliff

Actually Eamon would have never been poisoned at all if it were not for Jowan being hired. Isolde brought the man who tried to kill Eamon into the home because of Connor.

[Sir JK]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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.

Hmmm... perhaps. It's seems a bit skewed though, but I agree with the general premise. Similarily, magic causing injury and suffering by mistake/because of poor choice is also a very viable approach methinks.

I think that blood mages and abominations are a bit over-emphasized and that the plain fact that ordinary people have very little ability to resist a mage is a bit underemphasized. I'd like to see that in the spotlight a bit more (I liked that scene in Asunder for this reason).

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

@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.

Well you did say more as well, which I objected to. As for differently, sure. I'd like that. But I don't think there needs to be situations that specifically frame themselves to absolve Chantry/templars from harm. There should never be quests that are specifically about this or that danger of magic. Let these situations come up naturally and as befits the plot, showing the dangers of magic but never making it a core element.

If pro-mages then still want to blame the chantry. By all means let them.

Xilizhra wrote...
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.

Assuming nothing else? Yeah sure, that on it's own is a bit contrived. But a number of reasons could be easily manufactored to ensure that the child goes abomination among innocents. The easiest one being that the child does not want to leave his family and the family does not want to give the child up and being to poor to travel anywhere.

I agree though that the example is a bit too heavy-handed and slanted. It feels more like a lesson and less like a natural situation (because as you say... there's the "third option").

The general idea though, is sound. A scenario that asks the player some difficult questions when it comes to what kind of risks can be tolerated and then letting the player experience the aftermath of their choice.

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?

I'm sure one could portray a vast number of different archetypes in the rebellious templars. Off the top of my head? There's the ones with bonds of friendship and loyalty that stays in the order for those reasons. There's the honourbound ones that bitterly swallow their own oaths that they refuse to betray. The conservatives that believe the templars stand for the old order and cannot accept the changes that they see the other side reaching for. The ones controlled by their lyrium addiction. Ones who have had bad experiences with free mages.
I could easily see all those in the templars and one could easily have them without much malice. That take no joy whatsoever in the war.

Templars that aren't defined by mages but themselves, if that makes any sense . Where controlling mages is a duty, not an interest.

Templars out to kill every living mage and uniformly taking joy from this would be dull and uninteresting... and only marginally less human than the darkspawn.

That's not saying I want the templars to be clean in their presentation mind. The ilk of Alrik and Karras is needed to rock the boat a bit (or quite a lot).

[Xilizhra]

I think that blood mages and abominations are a bit over-emphasized and that the plain fact that ordinary people have very little ability to resist a mage is a bit underemphasized. I'd like to see that in the spotlight a bit more (I liked that scene in Asunder for this reason).

That one idiot was totally asking for it and you know it. The only potential problem would be collateral damage.

Assuming nothing else? Yeah sure, that on it's own is a bit contrived. But a number of reasons could be easily manufactored to ensure that the child goes abomination among innocents. The easiest one being that the child does not want to leave his family and the family does not want to give the child up and being to poor to travel anywhere.

I agree though that the example is a bit too heavy-handed and slanted. It feels more like a lesson and less like a natural situation (because as you say... there's the "third option").

The general idea though, is sound. A scenario that asks the player some difficult questions when it comes to what kind of risks can be tolerated and then letting the player experience the aftermath of their choice.

I always have spare cash, I'll pony up for travel fees. And if their kid was almost murdered, I think that'll make them more willing to travel. Even as an idea, it's not that great if you can't affect the risks directly yourself.

I'm sure one could portray a vast number of different archetypes in the rebellious templars. Off the top of my head? There's the ones with bonds of friendship and loyalty that stays in the order for those reasons. There's the honourbound ones that bitterly swallow their own oaths that they refuse to betray. The conservatives that believe the templars stand for the old order and cannot accept the changes that they see the other side reaching for. The ones controlled by their lyrium addiction. Ones who have had bad experiences with free mages.
I could easily see all those in the templars and one could easily have them without much malice. That take no joy whatsoever in the war.

I really couldn't give less of a **** if they enjoy it or not, all that matters is that they're waging it. That in itself is the problem.

Templars that aren't defined by mages but themselves, if that makes any sense smilie. Where controlling mages is a duty, not an interest.

I don't think there's any such thing. The position of a templar is defined by mages, as is their whole life; there don't seem to be any part-time templars.

[TK514]

Dabrikishaw wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

Honestly, I think DA2 handled both sides very poorly. The majority of templars are either cartoonishly evil rapists, stupid and incompetent, or possessed by demons to make them evil. Except for Cullen who is the only one who acts like a real person and not a caricature.

3 Templars. 3. Templars. Ser Alrik. Ser Mettin. Knight-Commander Meredith Stannard. every other templar with a name is a decent person first and at worst an addict. Templars after that are random encounters, who are still following orders.

Ser Kerras.  Knight-Captan Cullen as well, if you're of that persuasion.  Ser Emeric is rediculed by everyone not named Hawke, at the least.  Wilmod is possessed, Rauvena develops into a Meredith fan girl, Paxley starts as and remains an absurd conspiracy theorist, and any  'good' attributes Ser Thrask may have had are completely undone by the fact that he trusts blood Mages and they betray and murder him.

Not great representation on the Templar front.

[Dabrikishaw]

TK514 wrote...

Dabrikishaw wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

Honestly, I think DA2 handled both sides very poorly. The majority of templars are either cartoonishly evil rapists, stupid and incompetent, or possessed by demons to make them evil. Except for Cullen who is the only one who acts like a real person and not a caricature.

3 Templars. 3. Templars. Ser Alrik. Ser Mettin. Knight-Commander Meredith Stannard. every other templar with a name is a decent person first and at worst an addict. Templars after that are random encounters, who are still following orders.

Ser Kerras.  Knight-Captan Cullen as well, if you're of that persuasion.  Ser Emeric is rediculed by everyone not named Hawke, at the least.  Wilmod is possessed, Rauvena develops into a Meredith fan girl, Paxley starts as and remains an absurd conspiracy theorist, and any  'good' attributes Ser Thrask may have had are completely undone by the fact that he trusts blood Mages and they betray and murder him.

Not great representation on the Templar front.

What does that have to do with anything? In fact it proves my point for me.Kerras I forgot and Wilmond is a victim of a Blood Mage but the rest of these people aren't evil or insane, just decent indivduals trying to make the best out of a bad situation.

[Sir JK]

Xilizhra wrote...

That one idiot was totally asking for it and you know it. The only potential problem would be collateral damage.

Indeed. This is part of the equation. The world is quite full of idiots who are asking for it. It is also quite full of collateral damage.

I'd like to see that angle explored a bit more. Mages in actual society... and what kind of disasters that could lead to because of "idiots who are asking for it".

I always have spare cash, I'll pony up for travel fees. And if their kid was almost murdered, I think that'll make them more willing to travel. Even as an idea, it's not that great if you can't affect the risks directly yourself.

Of course. That's execution though, not premise of the idea. It needs to be natural and address the various things you could do to mitigdate it. And if those do indeed eliminate the risk, then they should. This is something that would have to be done carefully and very right... or it'll be very hit and miss.

I really couldn't give less of a **** if they enjoy it or not, all that matters is that they're waging it. That in itself is the problem.

Indeed. And it will still be whether I get my wish or not.

I don't think there's any such thing. The position of a templar is defined by mages, as is their whole life; there don't seem to be any part-time templars.

I wasn't talking about part-timers though. I was talking about people who stuck with the templars for reasons that weren't mages. Conservatives. Honourbound. Addicts. Loyalists and friends. Individuals. That mages happen to be their enemy is irrelevant to the persons they are. That they're not defined by what they think about mages. People that are more than their labels.

Much like how I do not want mages to be defined by their magic or their relationship vis-á-vis templars. They are people, that happen to be mages and have a less than ideal relationship with a certain martial order.

Did that make better sense?

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Thrask and Alrik had polar opposite personalities. Any hypothetical templar could be anything in between the two extremes. That's about as diverse as you get, certainly as much as the mages are.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 12 juin 2013 - 08:21 .

[TK514]

Dabrikishaw wrote...

TK514 wrote...

Dabrikishaw wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

Honestly, I think DA2 handled both sides very poorly. The majority of templars are either cartoonishly evil rapists, stupid and incompetent, or possessed by demons to make them evil. Except for Cullen who is the only one who acts like a real person and not a caricature.

3 Templars. 3. Templars. Ser Alrik. Ser Mettin. Knight-Commander Meredith Stannard. every other templar with a name is a decent person first and at worst an addict. Templars after that are random encounters, who are still following orders.

Ser Kerras.  Knight-Captan Cullen as well, if you're of that persuasion.  Ser Emeric is rediculed by everyone not named Hawke, at the least.  Wilmod is possessed, Rauvena develops into a Meredith fan girl, Paxley starts as and remains an absurd conspiracy theorist, and any  'good' attributes Ser Thrask may have had are completely undone by the fact that he trusts blood Mages and they betray and murder him.

Not great representation on the Templar front.

What does that have to do with anything? In fact it proves my point for me.Kerras I forgot and Wilmond is a victim of a Blood Mage but the rest of these people aren't evil or insane, just decent indivduals trying to make the best out of a bad situation.

Mole addressed three classes of Templar:  Evil by nature, Stupid/Incompetent, and demon possessed.  You said there were only three, and your examples only addressed the first type.  I provided an additional example of the first type, evil by nature, and expanded it to examples of the other types as well.

No matter how you slice it, Templars are portayed extremely poorly in DA2.

Unless you're a mage, oddly enough.  At which point you can potentially learn about a Templar who was derelict in his duty by allowing a Circle mage to go Apostate and flee to another country with a noble family's daughter, and an unlikable ****** who joins the Order to escape his sibling's shadow, but seems a decent enough fellow aside from that.  Though he is also derelict in his duty by not reporting an apostate at large.  Both being named 'Carver'.

Really, when your 'most acceptable' members of an organization are characterized by 'dereliction of duty', you're not portraying that organization in a positive light.

[Dabrikishaw]

That's hardly "demonized" and still nowhere near comparable to the mage portrayal,

[Asdrubael Vect]

Hazegurl wrote...

Dark Korsar wrote...
 
1)what arroganse and held above the laws are you talking about?

The law that states that mages are to be locked away in the circle. A law that these nobles...or noble lady saw fit to bypass thus causing the death of so many people.

..Eamon family is not just some nobles, they are сlose relatives of Ferelden King..

I'm sure all those dead people Connor killed will be happy to know that it wasn't just some peasant mage that did it.

2)because this is a safety place for him when he would learn how to hide his powers or even maybe how to stand agains Templars, yes.

No. Ask all those scared and dead people in Redcliffe if they felt safe.

3)Jowan just teach him how to hide his powers and nothing more...

Does not matter. Isolde should have taken him to the Circle or put him on a ship to Tevinter like his father did.

The Chantry Circle system was never work in Thedas and in Ferelden too( we see this with Maric and Logain who use it against Orlais, and when Logain use Uldred)

I don't recall Loghain using the circle against Orlais or him using Uldred.

4)demon not heal Eamon completely but supported his life, without it Eamon would be dead before Warden would even come to Redcliff

Actually Eamon would have never been poisoned at all if it were not for Jowan being hired. Isolde brought the man who tried to kill Eamon into the home because of Connor.

1)the law was from Orlais and their Orlais Chantry and Ferelden not a part of Orlais anymore so who cares? Nevarra and Anderfels do not really care as Tevinter and Rivain, and Ferlden after 5th blight too and have bad relationship with Orlais......i need to mention that Isolde father was Orlais noble and apostage MAGE who rulled Ferelden territories by Orlais authority

ohh i dare you:D you do not  even care about this peoples and who would kill them if magic will do nothing with that, this is how you do not care about massacres of entice circles who have much more peoples than entire Redcliff would ever  have before 5th blight(with their only 200 peoples when most of them was Eamon forces, when most part of them join to Ostagar)

...and Connor, Isolde and even Jowan(only poison Eamon) not kill anyone only army of dead  what was summoned by demon and go to mostly abandon villiage kill someone

3)before mostly abandoned Redcliff was attacked by dead and Darkspawns army or after?

4)year:D...be crazy and fully destroy Eamon family and kill Connor(or you really think that Eamon enemys or even Chantry cant esily kill him there?)....or try to secretly send the only 6 year old son of Eamon(close relatives to king family) out from Ferelden to Tevinter without any problems with others nobles and Chantry.....before 5th blight they simply cant do this

5)Logain promised to Uldred to have more freedom from Orlais Chantry if Circle would support him and after Ostagar, Uldred had nearly convinced the Circle to support Loghain, but when Wynne revealed Loghain's treachery to the Circle, they revoked their tentative support. Irving would not allow this and Uldred then attacked with a group of blood mages supporting him. During this fight Uldred attempted to summon a demon, but was overwhelmed and became an abomination.

6)ORLY? he may be killed without any problems by Antivan crowns what Logain hire for our Warden or be killed by Howe mercenaries

but if Connor would not find JOwan books and summon demon we would never save Eamon and have powers to deal with Logain and army to deal with Darkspawn to save much more peoples

Modifié par Dark Korsar, 12 juin 2013 - 09:24 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Dark Korsar wrote...

1)the law was from Orlais and their Orlais Chantry and Ferelden not a part of Orlais anymore so who cares? Nevarra and Anderfels do not really care......i need to mention that Isolde father was Orlais noble and apostage MAGE who rulled Ferelden territorys by Orlais authority

Orlais and the Chantry are not the same political entity. Yes, they scratch each other's back, but a lot of people who don't like Orlais nonetheless follow Chantry law.

2)ohh i dare you:D you do not  even care about this peoples and who would kill them if magic will do nothing with that, how you do not care about massacres of entice circles who have much more peoples than entire Redcliff  have before 5th blight(with their only 200 peoples when most of them was Eamon forces, most part of those join to Ostagar)

Supporting the Circles isn't the same as not caring about Annulments.

...and Connor, Isolde and even Jowan(only poison Eamon) not kill anyone only army of dead  what was summoned by demon and go to mostly abandon villiage kill someone

They killed through their carelessness. Each of the three is an accessory to mass murder (Connor most excusably due to his age, Jowan after him due to Loghain's coercion.) Besides which, the village was not mostly abandoned. Eamon did not send any forces to Ostagar, as you would know if you'd paid the slightest bit of attention. As for abandoning the village when the demon appeared, it punished any attempt at such.

3)before mostly abandoned Redcliff was attacked by dead and Darkspawns army or after?

Again, the village was not mostly abandoned. Mostly wiped out, maybe...

5)Logain promised to Uldred to have more freedom from Orlais Chantry if Circle would support him and after Ostagar, Uldred had nearly convinced the Circle to support Loghain, but when Wynne revealed Loghain's treachery to the Circle, they revoked their tentative support. Irving would not allow this and Uldred then attacked with a group of blood mages supporting him. During this fight Uldred attempted to summon a demon, but was overwhelmed and became an abomination.

Again, you're conflating Orlais with the Chantry. This isn't entirely accurate.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 12 juin 2013 - 10:06 .

[BlueMagitek]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Merrill was the First, not the Keeper. It's not up for debate.

Also, Cullen and Cassandra could be mandatory companions, so we have to put up with them if they turn out to be mandatory companions. Pro-mage fans included. And the Seekers seem to be little more than 'elite templars', so I see no reason to discount her from the discussion.

As Xil pointed out earlier, we received different cultural perspectives with the different mage companions - Merrill was Dalish and Anders was Andrastian, while Morrigan reveled in her freedom as Wynne supported the Chantry controlled Circle, for example. I'm sure Cullen and Cassandra will add templar perspectives to the narrative, whether we care to have them along or not.

You're right, I'm sorry.  Dalish Pariah, not Keeper/Bloodmage.  Could have just said that and saved us a lot of time.

Again, that has nothing to do with what has already happened.  And even if you need to take them with you, that's still 2 Templar (Alistar/Cullen) as opposed to, what, 6+  mages over several games?  The Seekers appear to be more of the Internal Affairs than actual Templar.  Unless you want to tell me that their primary function is to guard Circles and peasantry, hunt apostates and police mages?

Culturally the Templar could do the same.  A Tevinter Templar could be as different from Wynne as Morrigan was.  Templar also come from all walks of life.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Besides, her topic claims she is a Keeper. But I suppose you want to dispute that too?

That's cuz it's a play on words.

I am well aware of that, but vile, vile people are claiming that she is not in fact a Keeper.  How can you stand for this? 

Modifié par BlueMagitek, 12 juin 2013 - 09:24 .

[BlueMagitek]

But let me return to the topic at hand : Templar splitting from the Chantry. It is a bit of a shame, because I don't believe their Order can be sustained on its own, nor can its authority be legitimized without a large backer and the Chantry is significantly more neutral nationally than about any organization we've come across (mind the Wardens).

There is an Orlais tint though.

[Xilizhra]

Indeed. This is part of the equation. The world is quite full of idiots who are asking for it. It is also quite full of collateral damage.

I'd like to see that angle explored a bit more. Mages in actual society... and what kind of disasters that could lead to because of "idiots who are asking for it".

Collateral damage is far easier to avoid if you just use single-target spells.

Of course. That's execution though, not premise of the idea. It needs to be natural and address the various things you could do to mitigdate it. And if those do indeed eliminate the risk, then they should. This is something that would have to be done carefully and very right... or it'll be very hit and miss.

If you include my solution there as a possibility and have a personal sacrifice to be made for a great solution for the world as a whole, I'd say that's a good rendition.

I wasn't talking about part-timers though. I was talking about people who stuck with the templars for reasons that weren't mages. Conservatives. Honourbound. Addicts. Loyalists and friends. Individuals. That mages happen to be their enemy is irrelevant to the persons they are. That they're not defined by what they think about mages. People that are more than their labels.

Much like how I do not want mages to be defined by their magic or their relationship vis-á-vis templars. They are people, that happen to be mages and have a less than ideal relationship with a certain martial order.

Did that make better sense?

It could happen in theory, but I think DAO did that well enough. It can be done when the templars aren't in a situation that revolves around magic and mages, but this war seems to, and including too much of it would seem to blur the narrative focus.

[Hazegurl]

Dark Korsar wrote...
ohh i dare you:D you do not  even care about this peoples and who would kill them if magic will do nothing with that, this is how you do not care about massacres of entice circles who have much more peoples than entire Redcliff would ever  have before 5th blight(with their only 200 peoples when most of them was Eamon forces, when most part of them join to Ostagar)

I do care. I've never opted for the Annulment in Origins. However, during this particular Blight the mages weren't even needed anyway. A non mage player can have the RoA done on the circle, kill Wynne, recruit the Templars instead and still win the day.  i don't even really count Morrigan as a mage but even she is optional. Just recruit Loghain and have him die in your stead.

I just don't consider nobles above everyone else to the point where their lives are more valuable. it's not even about connor being a mage. If you allow nobles to break the law then how can you expect everyone else to follow it?

Also Redcliffe wasn't abandoned, everyone was dying.

and Eamon wouldn't have been poisoned if Jowan was never hired by Isolde. Loghain would have been forced to find another way to get rid of Eamon but using Jowan was easier.

The warden saved Eamon and since he wasn't killed by crows et al it doesn't matter. besides. Loghain wasn't even trying to kill Eamon, he just wanted him out of the way. So Connor did everything for nothing. Yes. All those people died for nothing.

Connor is no hero. Just a scared little boy who thought his father was going to die and gave himself over to a demon because his mother was very selfish and  irresponsible.

[Who is that Masked Man]

TK514 wrote...

Dabrikishaw wrote...

TK514 wrote...

Dabrikishaw wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

Honestly, I think DA2 handled both sides very poorly. The majority of templars are either cartoonishly evil rapists, stupid and incompetent, or possessed by demons to make them evil. Except for Cullen who is the only one who acts like a real person and not a caricature.

3 Templars. 3. Templars. Ser Alrik. Ser Mettin. Knight-Commander Meredith Stannard. every other templar with a name is a decent person first and at worst an addict. Templars after that are random encounters, who are still following orders.

Ser Kerras.  Knight-Captan Cullen as well, if you're of that persuasion.  Ser Emeric is rediculed by everyone not named Hawke, at the least.  Wilmod is possessed, Rauvena develops into a Meredith fan girl, Paxley starts as and remains an absurd conspiracy theorist, and any  'good' attributes Ser Thrask may have had are completely undone by the fact that he trusts blood Mages and they betray and murder him.

Not great representation on the Templar front.

What does that have to do with anything? In fact it proves my point for me.Kerras I forgot and Wilmond is a victim of a Blood Mage but the rest of these people aren't evil or insane, just decent indivduals trying to make the best out of a bad situation.

Mole addressed three classes of Templar:  Evil by nature, Stupid/Incompetent, and demon possessed.  You said there were only three, and your examples only addressed the first type.  I provided an additional example of the first type, evil by nature, and expanded it to examples of the other types as well.

No matter how you slice it, Templars are portayed extremely poorly in DA2.

Unless you're a mage, oddly enough.  At which point you can potentially learn about a Templar who was derelict in his duty by allowing a Circle mage to go Apostate and flee to another country with a noble family's daughter, and an unlikable ****** who joins the Order to escape his sibling's shadow, but seems a decent enough fellow aside from that.  Though he is also derelict in his duty by not reporting an apostate at large.  Both being named 'Carver'.

Really, when your 'most acceptable' members of an organization are characterized by 'dereliction of duty', you're not portraying that organization in a positive light.

Speaking of evil templars, we must also count Ser Unnamed Templar who was trying to get Feynriel back from the Dalish, and who tortured a young Dalish hunter to get information about him.

And Ser Varnell, the crazy mob-leading, Qunari-hating templar.

It should also be noted that "following orders" is not a valid defense when it comes to soldiers who commit war crimes. So in my opinion, the templars who stood with Ser Alrik after he announced his plans for Ella, and the templars who sided with Ser Mettin in trying to kill the mage-assisting civilians, can safely be counted as evil, too.

Finally, though the perpetrators can't really be counted (since we don't know how many templars were involved), it's unfair to ignore the complaints we hear in-game about how the Kirkwall templars beat the mages, rape them, lock them in dark rooms all day, take away their spell books and staves, illegally render mages Tranquil after they've past their Harrowing, and so on and so forth.

Isn't just mages who know it, either. Non-mages (like Leona, worrying about Carver), too, tell us that the templars have a bad reputation in Kirkwall. Though he blames it on the mages' superior PR operation, even Cullen has noticed that the templars used to be welcome everywhere but were now getting doors slammed in their faces.

So, no, I don't think it's fair to say that all but 3 (or 4, or actually 5...) of the Kirkwall templars were "decent people."

Modifié par Who is that Masked Man, 12 juin 2013 - 10:20 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

We aren't saying that only those 4 or 5 Templars were the bastards. We are saying that to claim that ALL Templars, based on these 4 or 5, are bastards, is unfair.

[Asdrubael Vect]

Hazegurl wrote...

I do care. I've never opted for the Annulment in Origins. However, during this particular Blight the mages weren't even needed anyway. A non mage player can have the RoA done on the circle, kill Wynne, recruit the Templars instead and still win the day.  i don't even really count Morrigan as a mage but even she is optional. Just recruit Loghain and have him die in your stead.

I just don't consider nobles above everyone else to the point where their lives are more valuable. it's not even about connor being a mage. If you allow nobles to break the law then how can you expect everyone else to follow it?

Also Redcliffe wasn't abandoned, everyone was dying.

and Eamon wouldn't have been poisoned if Jowan was never hired by Isolde. Loghain would have been forced to find another way to get rid of Eamon but using Jowan was easier.

The warden saved Eamon and since he wasn't killed by crows et al it doesn't matter. besides. Loghain wasn't even trying to kill Eamon, he just wanted him out of the way. So Connor did everything for nothing. Yes. All those people died for nothing.

Connor is no hero. Just a scared little boy who thought his father was going to die and gave himself over to a demon because his mother was very selfish and  irresponsible.

1)ok now look at you DAO non-mage character and look how many PEOPLES(i am not talking about Darkspawn and other creatures) was killed by him....my rogue mostly was tryed to be a good person and not killing but still he killed a ~900 peoples what is a 2 Lotherings, 4.5 Redcliffs, 1/10 of Gwaren

2)you not and i am not too really...but Thedas peoples are, like any medieval and even modern society who still think that life of some peoples are more valuable than life of the others

3)most part of Redcliff was pretty alive for me when we have Eamon army:D

4)but Jowan would never poison Emon if Logain would not send him to Eamon and not give him rare books what Jowan was never have and what was founded by Connor when Jowan was inprison, who read them to summon demon who do all work

5)who saing that he is hero:D, he is just a 6 year old boy who wanted to save his father, in some cases he did it....but we know that even a nonmage can summon or be possesed by demons without any problems

Modifié par Dark Korsar, 12 juin 2013 - 10:45 .

[Who is that Masked Man]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

We aren't saying that only those 4 or 5 Templars were the bastards. We are saying that to claim that ALL Templars, based on these 4 or 5, are bastards, is unfair.

It kind of looks like Dabrikishaw was saying that only those 3 templars were bastards. But if I was mistaken, my bad!

Anyway, there are clearly non-bastard templars in DA2. Aside from poor, naive, trusted-the-wrong-mage Ser Thrask, my personal favorite is Ser Bardel, who repeatedly questioned Ser Alric's orders and even tried to go above his head to Meredith with his concerns.

Ended up getting intimidated by Alric into falling in line, apparently, and went on to get killed by Hawke. Still, he had tried "a hundred times" to rein Alric in.