1081 réponses à ce sujet

[TCBC_Freak]

LolaLei wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

R2s Muse wrote...

I'm curious about this very clear case of Cullen rescinding the order to arrest Hawke?? He questions Meredith about how they were going to arrest her, and then tells Meredith this isn't what the Order stands for and tells her to stand down. You can interpret the final scenes of Cullen bowing or letting Hawke go as him somewhere along the way issuing an official override of that command to the templars, but we don't see it on camera. By the same line of argument, there could have been a rescinding of the Right of Annulment as well. Thing is, we don't know either way, so the argument is pretty thin. Just not mentioning surviving mages in the very limited epilogue is hardly proof.

Maybe, but I tend to be of the belief that if we don't see it then it didn't happen. Given we never see Cullen actually resind the right, nor do we EVER hear of any mages surviving if Hawke sides with the Templars (no matter what is done in the gallows itself), I go with the default lore. All the mages were indeed killed (or maybe tranquilized per DG).

-Polaris

We never see Hawke meet or have any dealings with Lady Elegant prior to that one scene at the beginning of Act 1, but supposedly they knew each other well from his year working to keep his family in Kirkwall. Does that mean none of that happened either?

There is a lot we never see and thus infer.

That's one example you give lolalei, but there are other too. We never see Alistair take the Warden oath but he talks about it so we take his word. We never see what Hawke does in those intervening years between the Acts but he/she is politically active and making a name for him/herself. Then their is the books to consider, we don't see those events in game but they must have happened right? At least to an extent. We never see, in game, Dawn of the Seeker but clearly Cassandra is the head of their order... or maybe she isn't, we can't tell if she's the head based on what we see in DA2, she could be just another seeker. In fact some things we see clearly in game are blatantly contradicted in game! You can kill Liliana and yet there she is in DA2, none the worse for wear. Ultimately this is a game and the story tells can do as they like, we shouldn't talk in such absolutes about Cullen continuing the RoA or revoking it, as the evidence seem to indicated that he would let some mages live if he could... also we have to remember that by the time he stood up to Meridith the RoA was almost finished no matter who you side with as Hawke, so if there was only a few mages left either way revoking the rite is kind of a non-issue.

Edit: You also have to take into acount that Varric is telling the story and every word of it could be false.:innocent:

Modifié par TCBC_Freak, 16 juin 2013 - 07:33 .

[TCBC_Freak]

And to the Topic at hand, situation I'd like to see Templar in, I'd like to see a clash between Templar and Qunari. Honestly, seeing those two groups go at it would be kind of fun, because neither one brokers lasting peace, at best you have a cease fire. But dogmatic honorable Qunari vs. dogmatic righteous Templar is a battle I'd like to fight. It'd be the ultimate "Knights" against "Barbarian," fight. Like Rome against Carthage.

[LolaLei]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

R2s Muse wrote...

I'm curious about this very clear case of Cullen rescinding the order to arrest Hawke?? He questions Meredith about how they were going to arrest her, and then tells Meredith this isn't what the Order stands for and tells her to stand down. You can interpret the final scenes of Cullen bowing or letting Hawke go as him somewhere along the way issuing an official override of that command to the templars, but we don't see it on camera. By the same line of argument, there could have been a rescinding of the Right of Annulment as well. Thing is, we don't know either way, so the argument is pretty thin. Just not mentioning surviving mages in the very limited epilogue is hardly proof.

Maybe, but I tend to be of the belief that if we don't see it then it didn't happen. Given we never see Cullen actually resind the right, nor do we EVER hear of any mages surviving if Hawke sides with the Templars (no matter what is done in the gallows itself), I go with the default lore. All the mages were indeed killed (or maybe tranquilized per DG).

-Polaris

We never see Hawke meet or have any dealings with Lady Elegant prior to that one scene at the beginning of Act 1, but supposedly they knew each other well from his year working to keep his family in Kirkwall. Does that mean none of that happened either?

There is a lot we never see and thus infer.

That's one example you give lolalei, but there are other too. We never see Alistair take the Warden oath but he talks about it so we take his word. We never see what Hawke does in those intervening years between the Acts but he/she is politically active and making a name for him/herself. Then their is the books to consider, we don't see those events in game but they must have happened right? At least to an extent. We never see, in game, Dawn of the Seeker but clearly Cassandra is the head of their order... or maybe she isn't, we can't tell if she's the head based on what we see in DA2, she could be just another seeker. In fact some things we see clearly in game are blatantly contradicted in game! You can kill Liliana and yet there she is in DA2, none the worse for wear. Ultimately this is a game and the story tells can do as they like, we shouldn't talk in such absolutes about Cullen continuing the RoA or revoking it, as the evidence seem to indicated that he would let some mages live if he could... also we have to remember that by the time he stood up to Meridith the RoA was almost finished no matter who you side with as Hawke, so if there was only a few mages left either way revoking the rite is kind of a non-issue.

Edit: You also have to take into acount that Varric is telling the story and every word of it could be false.:innocent:

Exactly, which was the very point I was trying to make to IanPolaris. Just because we didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Tarek]

ok Templars are:

1- paranoid
2- delusional
3- crazy
4- paranoid
5- egotistic
6- racists
7- religious zealots
8- paranoid
9- closed minded
10- cowards
11- have zero interest in understand magic, which would incidentally help them i there jobs better, even a scholastic reading of magic would be enough.
12- did I mention paranoid

sorry they got the classic insane zealous group of fanatics that will not try to show mercy or understand anything but their point of view

by templar logic all people should burn because they MIGHT do something wrong, well DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH people are stupid and they do stupid stuff

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Tarek wrote...

by templar logic all people should burn because they MIGHT do something wrong, well DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH people are stupid and they do stupid stuff

Most people can't solo a city. I really wish pro-mages would stop using this strawman.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 16 juin 2013 - 09:42 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
Most people can't solo a city. I really wish pro-mages would stop using this strawman.

It really is the worst argument in favor of mages

And pro-mages.

[Vit246]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Tarek wrote...

by templar logic all people should burn because they MIGHT do something wrong, well DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH people are stupid and they do stupid stuff

Most people can't solo a city. I really wish pro-mages would stop using this strawman.

Mages do not solo entire cities. It doesn't work that. Why? Because they are powerful, but they are not that powerful. Mages don't spontaneously become abominations and than spontaneously explode like an "atom bomb" or whatever similar to wiping out a city (people need to stop using the bomb word).

This is a repetivitive exaageration that has never had any basis. If it did, there's no way civilization would have grown and prospered. Its never happened ever. The Ferelden Circle was FULL of mages who had just become even worse than before. By this logic, perhaps Ferelden should've been wiped off the map?

Modifié par Vit246, 16 juin 2013 - 11:00 .

[Vit246]

double post.

Modifié par Vit246, 16 juin 2013 - 10:53 .

[ParatrooperSean]

Tarek wrote...

ok Templars are:

1- paranoid
2- delusional
3- crazy
4- paranoid
5- egotistic
6- racists
7- religious zealots
8- paranoid
9- closed minded
10- cowards
11- have zero interest in understand magic, which would incidentally help them i there jobs better, even a scholastic reading of magic would be enough.
12- did I mention paranoid

sorry they got the classic insane zealous group of fanatics that will not try to show mercy or understand anything but their point of view

by templar logic all people should burn because they MIGHT do something wrong, well DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH people are stupid and they do stupid stuff

I agree with #1, but 4 and 8 are way off base.

Modifié par ParatrooperSean, 16 juin 2013 - 10:57 .

[LobselVith8]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Most people can't solo a city. I really wish pro-mages would stop using this strawman.

Magic can be dangerous, but some of us don't think giving the templars or the Chantry control over mages is the solution. I think giving an anti-mage religious organization dominion over almost every mage in the Andrastian kingdoms (with the exception of Grey Wardens) doesn't resolve the dilemma of magic being misused. Mages have done horrible things; so have templars. Meredith's sister killed many people; in turn, Meredith tried to kill hundreds of men, women, and children to satisfy a proverbial mob.

Both sides will disagree for time immemorial on this dichotomy. You know neither side is ever going to agree on this issue.

[TCBC_Freak]

Tarek wrote...

ok Templars are:

1- paranoid
2- delusional
3- crazy
4- paranoid
5- egotistic
6- racists
7- religious zealots
8- paranoid
9- closed minded
10- cowards
11- have zero interest in understand magic, which would incidentally help them i there jobs better, even a scholastic reading of magic would be enough.
12- did I mention paranoid

sorry they got the classic insane zealous group of fanatics that will not try to show mercy or understand anything but their point of view

by templar logic all people should burn because they MIGHT do something wrong, well DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH people are stupid and they do stupid stuff

Each Templar is a person, some may be what you say, others aren't.

Some mages are power hungry mad men who kill babies to fuel their magic.

Some Templar are good people who are trying to do the right thing in a world we can't begin to understand beacuse it is so alien to our own.

[Asdrubael Vect]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Vit246 wrote...
Most people can't solo a city. I really wish pro-mages would stop using this strawman.

Mages do not solo entire cities. It doesn't work that. Why? Because they are powerful, but they are not that powerful. Mages don't spontaneously become abominations and than spontaneously explode like an "atom bomb" or whatever similar to wiping out a city (people need to stop using the bomb word).

This is a repetivitive exaageration that has never had any basis. If it did, there's no way civilization would have grown and prospered.

Meredith's sister killed seventy people when she became an abomination. And she was just a child. That isn't a city. But it's within range of a small village.

I imagine a pride demon abomination like Uldred could easily massacre a city

1)she killed 70 peoples(but i think that she burn their houses with them) because of Templars opressions and Templars inefficiency with fight with deamons...but if her parents find her a apostage who can train her nothing of all of that will never happen

2) i am not remember that she was a child and her actual age

3)before deamon, Uldred was a Enchanter with big powers and knoledges(maybe more than Irving had)...but still he was stoped by 1-4 peoples when he was become a deamon....Uldred can't massacre city especially when Fereldens have a Litanny of Andralla

Modifié par Dark Korsar, 16 juin 2013 - 11:43 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Vit246 wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Tarek wrote...

by templar logic all people should burn because they MIGHT do something wrong, well DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH people are stupid and they do stupid stuff

Most people can't solo a city. I really wish pro-mages would stop using this strawman.

Mages do not solo entire cities. It doesn't work that. Why? Because they are powerful, but they are not that powerful. Mages don't spontaneously become abominations and than spontaneously explode like an "atom bomb" or whatever similar to wiping out a city (people need to stop using the bomb word).

You're right on that score; a bomb that takes several nights to empty Redcliffe would be pretty hard to swallow.

This is a repetivitive exaageration that has never had any basis. If it did, there's no way civilization would have grown and prospered. Its never happened ever.

It happens rarely. A mage could turn, and if that happens the worst case scenario is that a city could fall if the abomination is not stopped in time. This is cited as fact in the Codex, in a letter to a man who one would think is capable of checking up on that fact. So, presumably, if this point didn't hold water it wouldn't be used, since there's already enough points in that letter that such a potentially costly exaggeration wouldn't be used.

The Ferelden Circle was FULL of mages who had just become even worse than before. By this logic, perhaps Ferelden should've been wiped off the map?

That might well have happened, except that the Warden is essentially a god. As for why the standoff lasted as long as it did, don't forget there was a magical barrier blocking them, and that Uldred hadn't finished turning the other mages yet when the Warden reached him. Thus, the weaker demons were held in check, and the Pride Abomination in a Senior Enchanter hadn't turned his attention to removing that problem yet.

Dark Korsar wrote...

3)before deamon, Uldred was a Enchanter with big powers and knoledges(maybe more than Irving had)...but still he was stoped by 1-4 peoples when he was become a deamon....Uldred can't massacre city especially when Fereldens have a Litanny of Andralla

This group was a smaller subset of the group that ended a Blight in a year. For reference, those usually last centuries. Don't use them as evidence that abominations aren't that tough; they really aren't compelling evidence in that direction.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 17 juin 2013 - 01:26 .

[IanPolaris]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Vit246 wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Tarek wrote...

by templar logic all people should burn because they MIGHT do something wrong, well DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH people are stupid and they do stupid stuff

Most people can't solo a city. I really wish pro-mages would stop using this strawman.

Mages do not solo entire cities. It doesn't work that. Why? Because they are powerful, but they are not that powerful. Mages don't spontaneously become abominations and than spontaneously explode like an "atom bomb" or whatever similar to wiping out a city (people need to stop using the bomb word).

You're right on that score; a bomb that takes several nights to empty Redcliffe would be pretty hard to swallow.

Let's also not forget that Redcliffe represented just about the worst possible case.  You had a land in the middle of a civil war, the Circle of Magi either under seige or destroyed (and along with it most of the Templars).  Finally you had a fairly isolated village and an abomination that was 'lucky' enough to have a working pool of people to start with.

In more normal times, (remember that Bann Teagan asked for help many times and that the circle tower is less than a day away), the Templar would come, and that would be that.  There would be loss of life but on a much smaller scale. 

I also note that the nature of the circle system itself was one of the reasons why Isolde her her son's abilities in the first place.  No one is saying that untrained mages aren't dangerous, but with the right reforms, perhaps Isolde could have legally gotten a far, far better tutor than Jowan (hard to get one that's much worse IMO).
If so, Redcliffe simply doesn't happen.

This is a repetivitive exaageration that has never had any basis. If it did, there's no way civilization would have grown and prospered. Its never happened ever.

It happens rarely. A mage could turn, and if that happens the worst case scenario is that a city could fall if the abomination is not stopped in time. This is cited as fact in the Codex, in a letter to a man who one would think is capable of checking up on that fact. So, presumably, if this point didn't hold water it wouldn't be used, since there's already enough points in that letter that such a potentially costly exaggeration wouldn't be used.

That is untrue.  There are a number of psychological studies that show that people will believe things with complete credulity that aren't true and never have been true, if it's repeated and asserted often enough especially by those in authority.  The chantry from the Nevarran accords on has always held (publically anyway) that unchecked mages are an active danger that can 'go abomination' by stubbing their toes, and so needed to be locked away for the public good.  The Chanty even insists that training doesn't change that (in fact Cullen says this repeatedly).  The problem is the evidence doesn't support that, but it dfoesn't stop the Templars from claiming it (and too few people have challenged it until recently).  I note that in private and with better educated audienances (nobility) the Chantry uses a different justification....fear of a Tevinter Magocracy.

The Ferelden Circle was FULL of mages who had just become even worse than before. By this logic, perhaps Ferelden should've been wiped off the map?

That might well have happened, except that the Warden is essentially a god. As for why the standoff lasted as long as it did, don't forget there was a magical barrier blocking them, and that Uldred hadn't finished turning the other mages yet when the Warden reached him. Thus, the weaker demons were held in check, and the Pride Abomination in a Senior Enchanter hadn't turned his attention to removing that problem yet.

Any trained mage with manaclash could have retaken the tower.  Really.  It's not very hard.

Dark Korsar wrote...

3)before deamon, Uldred was a Enchanter with big powers and knoledges(maybe more than Irving had)...but still he was stoped by 1-4 peoples when he was become a deamon....Uldred can't massacre city especially when Fereldens have a Litanny of Andralla

This group was a smaller subset of the group that ended a Blight in a year. For reference, those usually last centuries. Don't use them as evidence that abominations aren't that tough; they really aren't compelling evidence in that direction.

Abominations really aren't that tough.  We have no in game evidence of that.

-Polaris

[BlueMagitek]

Lorewise, abominations are very tough. All of Gregoire's Templar are prepared for *two* abominations at most, and that's presumably with Senior Enchanters as auxiliary.

There are codexes scattered about treating Revenants and Arcane Horrors as, more or less, Army Killers.

[IanPolaris]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Lorewise, abominations are very tough. All of Gregoire's Templar are prepared for *two* abominations at most, and that's presumably with Senior Enchanters as auxiliary.

There are codexes scattered about treating Revenants and Arcane Horrors as, more or less, Army Killers.

Show don't tell then.  When we experience Thedas, we (or at least I) am not at all impressed with any abominations other than the Pride ones (in DA2).  Seriously.

I would also point out that let's say that Uldred does make what?  30 or so abominations?  (A lot).  His army would still have to get through Wynne's barrier, the remaining templars, and then cross Lake Calenhad.  Also remember that Fereldan is already a country at civil war which means everyone will be on combat alert against marauders anyway,and much of the land is under the boot of the Darkspawn.

Sure, without the Grey Warden, Uldred may have destroyed the Tower and the village by Lake Calenhad, but simple logistics should tell all of you that the damage would be essentially limited to that.  The sheer size of the ongoing war would absorb any damage the abominations could reasonably do....and it's not like darkspawn have much of a mind to be dominated.

So in the short term Uldred-Abomination's plan had a large probability of sucess, but long term?  Not really.

-Polaris

[SamaraDraven]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Any trained mage with manaclash could have retaken the tower. Really. It's not very hard.

Gameplay/Story

Abominations really aren't that tough. We have no in game evidence of that.

Gameplay/Story

You are the PC and thus a massive Mary Sue that can slay dragons and beat abominations to death with your hands and chug lyrium potions with no ill effects. 

haha! Indeed!

As the PC, You're special, you're exceptionally badass, you're capable of doing what no one else in the game can. Hence why everyone looks to you, asks for your help and gives you power to make decisions about the course their little village will take. It's why you can take down ogres and beat Sten in a fight. The average person/fighter/soldier in the game isn't a speshul snowflake so abominations are a Big Deal. :happy:

[BlueMagitek]

Well, ****, why do I need to even gather armies? I should just get Cauthain and she'll literally murder every single darkspawn in the deep roads. My Warden could probably carve a bloodbath through every nation of Thedas if he ever had an existential crisis.

I believe some of the developers said they were going to make abominations more badass. Especially because abominations are supposed to use the magic potential of both demon and mage, while they just sort of run at you and suicide bomb you in game.

And, as Morocco told you, it's a segregation of gameplay and story. It's used in the vast majority of video games.

[IanPolaris]

SamaraDraven wrote...

haha! IndeedAs the PC, You're special, you're exceptionally badass, you're capable of doing what no one else in the game can. Hence why everyone looks to you, asks for your help and gives you power to make decisions about the course their little village will take. It's why you can take down ogres and beat Sten in a fight. The average person/fighter/soldier in the game isn't a speshul snowflake so abominations are a Big Deal. :happy:

Not just you though.  Any mage or better yet two mages (Morrigan+Wynne) with Manaclash take out the tower easily.  Not just the PC.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

BlueMagitek wrote...
I believe some of the developers said they were going to make abominations more badass. Especially because abominations are supposed to use the magic potential of both demon and mage, while they just sort of run at you and suicide bomb you in game.of gameplay and story.

Pity they didn't in DA2 other than Pride Abominations, but wound up breaking most of the other lore in DA2 instead (summoning Abominations?  Really?)

Yes I know about gameplay/story segregation.  It's a trope, but if taken too far it harms WSD and it's taken too far here.  The fact is abominations really aren't a big deal.

-Polaris

[BlueMagitek]

Morocco Mole wrote...

This would be nice. I understand that gameplay and lore must be occasonally seperated to make the game fun (like no lyrium addiction for chugging potions) but it gets odd to start slaughtering monsters that are said to be able to take on several men by the dozens in a single fight.

Or murdering a Pride Demon like it is nothing.

I'm going to assume that Varric was lying through his teeth about the amount of abominations that Hawke killed or that plagued Kirkwall, otherwise that city should be ash.

In DA:O, the toughest fights are with a human (Ser Ca) and Gaxkang (who is either a Pride or Hunger demon). 

Edit:

Polaris, by that reasoning, Fireball is the strongest spell that Genis will ever know in ToS, despite knowing meteor storm.  Everything else in the game is horrified of abominations, from in character discussion (Gregoire) to multiple codex entries.  Again, why do we need an army when a Warden is capable of killing anything that moves?  Darkspawn are easy to kill, why not just cut into the horde and slay the Archdemon?

Modifié par BlueMagitek, 17 juin 2013 - 02:14 .