1081 réponses à ce sujet

[KainD]

Hazegurl wrote...

I think some people are too busy fan raging to stay on topic. they think that just because someone wishes for a more Templar perspective then it means mages will be protrayed as super evils <_<

No, it just seems a little pointless request now that I think of it. The game will focus on mage/templar conflicts for some substential amount of time, it's a given that both sides will be represented in their best light, and will try to convince the player of something. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, when the topic creator explicitly wants this, yes.

Funny. That isn't what it said in that letter.

[Xilizhra]

iakus wrote...

KainD wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
This thread is NOT about guilt throwing but implementation of perspectives in the game. 

Soo you.. just.. want to hear a few templars talk about their life and stuff? 
I'm sure that will be in the game. And some templar companion and some templar choices too. 

I think teh desire is to give us a better perspective of why templars believe as they do.  To make thier stance sem more reasonable, and less...knife-happy.

Their stance isn't reasonable. It is not unrealistic to fight zealously for a completely unreasonable cause; as causes go, there are probably more of them than reasonable ones, certainly more of them that take violent zealots.

Funny. That isn't what it said in that letter.

The OP wants all blood magic to be inherently corrupting, all abominations to be ultrapowerful, and the templars to win.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 07 juin 2013 - 10:52 .

[KainD]

iakus wrote...

I think teh desire is to give us a better perspective of why templars believe as they do.  To make thier stance sem more reasonable, and less...knife-happy.

Lotion recently told me that we are humans and we alll have our prespectives, as such Knife-happy stance is no less reasonable. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

iakus wrote...

KainD wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
This thread is NOT about guilt throwing but implementation of perspectives in the game. 

Soo you.. just.. want to hear a few templars talk about their life and stuff? 
I'm sure that will be in the game. And some templar companion and some templar choices too. 

I think teh desire is to give us a better perspective of why templars believe as they do.  To make thier stance sem more reasonable, and less...knife-happy.

Their stance isn't reasonable. It is not unrealistic to fight zealously for a completely unreasonable cause; as causes go, there are probably more of them than reasonable ones, certainly more of them that take violent zealots.

Their stance is to keep mages (a minority of the population) under guard because they can turn into abominations, and because mundanes (the vast majority) have no real way of defending themselves from mage criminals. The only truly internally consistent argument against this that I can see would be that some things are wrong regardless of intent, which you don't believe judging by your reaction to Adrian.

[Xilizhra]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

iakus wrote...

KainD wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
This thread is NOT about guilt throwing but implementation of perspectives in the game. 

Soo you.. just.. want to hear a few templars talk about their life and stuff? 
I'm sure that will be in the game. And some templar companion and some templar choices too. 

I think teh desire is to give us a better perspective of why templars believe as they do.  To make thier stance sem more reasonable, and less...knife-happy.

Their stance isn't reasonable. It is not unrealistic to fight zealously for a completely unreasonable cause; as causes go, there are probably more of them than reasonable ones, certainly more of them that take violent zealots.

Their stance is to keep mages (a minority of the population) under guard because they can turn into abominations, and because mundanes (the vast majority) have no real way of defending themselves from mage criminals. The only truly internally consistent argument against this that I can see would be that some things are wrong regardless of intent, which you don't believe judging by your reaction to Adrian.

I believe their current stance is the complete extermination of the mage population. In any case, every part of the implementation of their charter is twisted and damaging. Also, the rest of the population would be better able to defend itself if the templars stopped monopolizing their training.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...


The OP wants all blood magic to be inherently corrupting, all abominations to be ultrapowerful, and the templars to win.

He believes all blood magic to be inherently corrupting, I think. I believe he's wrong there, but unless you can cite a post saying he wants that, you should use the term "believes." As for abominations being ultrapowerful... yes. According to Gaider, the gameplay was a fluke, and abominations are a lot more dangerous than the gameplay shows. If you believe both of these, the Templars start coming off a lot more reasonably, don't they?

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

...right up until she decides you're more useful as a martyr to her cause.

I doubt that situation would be repeated.

Once is too often

Are you sure? There's a lot of mages in Thedas.

Fine. None that we have evidence for.

Better.  But I still think the odds are in my favor.

No, she proved herself "wholly good" when she disrupted Adrien's spell when she tried picking a fight with the villagers, then drew her sword to protect Adrien from said angry villagers.

That, to me, is what a "real templar" does. Protects each side from the abuses of the other.

While keeping the mages unjustly imprisoned at swordpoint on some escort mission. That she behaved with mild competence does not absolve her.

i thought she demonstrated more than mild competance.  If all templars would like her there may never have been a revolt.

Right now, this isn't about mage freedom, it's about killing templars. I wouldn't necessarily nominate Adrian for nation-building (though her perspective is useful), but she's good at killing templars, and we need to kill templars.

And here I thought it was about finding a way to stop the mages and templars from killing each other.

[Lotion Soronarr]

KainD wrote...

Then what is the point in any discussion what so ever, what is this topic for? People will always have their different opinions, it's not like you are the only templar supporter. Everybody is right, everybody has their own perspective. Templars are right, mage revolutionists are right, Tevinter is right, Dalish are right, Qunari are right, it's all a matter of perspective. All the little things the protagonist can do are right - whether it be helping the poor and suffering or hurting and killing innocents it's all the same, everything a matter of perspective. 

Pick your side and have fun, stop trying to justify your point, justice is completely and utterly subjective. 

Correct. Everyone will have an oppinion. And most poeple will jump to defend it if they ever feel it is "threatened", as is easily seen in this thread. 
Some will go to redicolous lengths.

Again, this isn't about the conclusion, but about presentation.

Mages had a far more in-depth and more personal presentation. You always had mages in the party. The player could be a mage. Simply put, it's not equal or balanced.

And speaking of balance, mages (and especially abominations) in lore are supossed to be more powerfull. The game balance skews the portrayl in the mages favor again.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

iakus wrote...

I think teh desire is to give us a better perspective of why templars believe as they do.  To make thier stance sem more reasonable, and less...knife-happy.

Their stance isn't reasonable. It is not unrealistic to fight zealously for a completely unreasonable cause; as causes go, there are probably more of them than reasonable ones, certainly more of them that take violent zealots.

Their stance is to keep mages (a minority of the population) under guard because they can turn into abominations, and because mundanes (the vast majority) have no real way of defending themselves from mage criminals. The only truly internally consistent argument against this that I can see would be that some things are wrong regardless of intent, which you don't believe judging by your reaction to Adrian.

I believe their current stance is the complete extermination of the mage population.

If that is the case, then they are stupid, and there really is no choice but to put them down. That's not the same as the basic idea of the Circle being wrong, though. This doesn't show that.

In any case, every part of the implementation of their charter is twisted and damaging. Also, the rest of the population would be better able to defend itself if the templars stopped monopolizing their training.

The rationale behind it is that the Templars do less damage then the mages would if they were let loose, which can be said to justify at least the basics of the Circle system. Besides which, the Templar training has been retconned to actually require lyrium, if Gaider didn't intend from the very beginning that Alistair mistook his own ability to use them without it as typical. Lyrium is controlled by the Chantry, and arguably for good reason given the dangers of the stuff. So, there goes your main argument for letting the mages loose among the general population.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 07 juin 2013 - 11:05 .

[KainD]

@Lotion Soronnar
Oh boy. You've masked your message of ''I want more templar content'' pretty well, got all sorts of people confused.

[Dave of Canada]

Filament wrote...

You'd need an army of templars to have any chance against an abomination filled circle.

You technically do.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 07 juin 2013 - 11:14 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Bloody hell...

Xilizhra, your every post is a comdemnation of templars and any perspective that doesn't condemn them.
For all you said one could just record you saying "Templars evil! Kill all templars!" and play it on a endless loop. It would be equally interesting and informative.

Please, tell me how does that add anything to the discussion?
I will ask you again to either get with the program or kindly leave. And that goes for everyone.


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.

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...
I believe their current stance is the complete extermination of the mage population. In any case, every part of the implementation of their charter is twisted and damaging. Also, the rest of the population would be better able to defend itself if the templars stopped monopolizing their training.

I'm sure that's a stance for some templars, just as it's the stance of some mages that they should be the ones ruling Thedas.

And I agree.  The original intention for the CIrcle of Magi (as a sanctuary for mages to practice magic) has been twisted and corrupted.  Both in the Imperial Chantry and the White Chantry, in different ways.

But i don't think it's as simple a matter of "teach the populace to defend themselves"  If it were, then I figure the Chantry would have tried it by now.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

OK so on the topic of making Templars more sympathetic? It's not that hard. Dragon Age 2 didn't have enough but it kind of half way on the right track with a couple of them.

Thrask was pretty good until he became so obsessed with ousting Meredith that he seemed to forget he still needed to police his charges for signs of danger. Thrask had very powerful reasons for wanting to be a templar and for believing it was the best choice for mages and that always was the case. Even in the end he was trying to oust Meredith so he could make the Circle a better place. Strangely he was on guard against becoming as ruthless as Meredith in order to take her down yet wasn't as worried about turning to demons and blood magic to do it? A templar who takes a stand against blood magic and against templar abuses and ruthlessness would be the best choice.

There are certainly enough reasons for someone to genuinely believe the Circle System is the best solution to the mage/mundane problem. Therefore many good men and women could genuinely think they are making the world a better place by helping. Bethany's Codex even mentions this if she goes to the Circle. The idea is that since magic is dangerous, mages need a protected place like the Cirlce to learn to master themselves, both for their own sake and for others. Maybe that's right, maybe that's wrong, but you don't have to be evil or sadistic or power hungry to believe that it's true.

What makes the worst examples of templars so bad in Kirkwall?
1 - The physical and/or emotional abuse of their charges.
2 - The abuse of the rite of tranquility.
3 - The overzealous pursuit of their mandate regardless of cost.
4 - The hatred of magic and mages personally.
5 - The regular refusal to consider any alternatives to courses.
6 - The oppressively restrictive levels of the Circle under Meredith.
7 - Being power hungry beyond the scope of the design of their order. In Kirkwall the system wasn't working because the templars wielded more politcal power than they were meant to. And that came about as a direct response to a brutal ruler trying to oust them.

A templar does not necessarily have any of these things. Thrask believed that the world was dangerous and the safest place for mages (and for everyone else) was for the mages to join the Circles. He was motivated by compassion for mages and asks Hawke to do the same. And even in the end he was fighting for the system he thought was best for everyone, and saw Meredith as a threat to it. Moreover, a templar doesn't even need to think that the system is perfect, just the best of limited alternatives. Or they can acknowledge that sometimes it's best to bend the rules, like the original Ser Carver or that Templar in the Lothering Chantry.

Templars with more sympathetic motives (and no corrupt abusive tenancies) aren't hard to create. Even Meredith shows signs of being being more sympathetic and reasonable before the game immediately undoes them to make her more antagonistic.

"What if we find no evidence implicating Orsino?"
"Then I am wrong, Champion. I will not ask you to lie for me."
*Later*
"ORSINO IS STILL OBVIOUSLY GUILTY! I DON'T CARE WHAT I JUST SAID! I'M NOT CRAZY!"

The values of a good templar should be, at the most basic level, about protecting the most innocent lives. And the belief the sacrifices (from one's self or from others) are sometimes necessary to do that.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 07 juin 2013 - 11:35 .

[addiction21]

Hazegurl wrote...

I think some people are too busy fan raging to stay on topic. they think that just because someone wishes for a more Templar perspective then it means mages will be protrayed as super evils <_<

Its far more simple. Its a dissenting view so it must be squashed. Its funny how some posters actually embody the very things they claim to detest.

[KainD]

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

Templar quests.
Templar writings and public inspiring group speeches.
Templar companions.
Templar/Mage friendships maybe alliences, and communication with both parties about the subject.
Overall more carring and kind attitude towards mages from templars met in the game, templars that fight more knife-happy templars that only want to exteriminate mages. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Filament wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

*deleted content*

I would agree that the first abomination should be presented like an ogre, perhaps, as a boss level opponent. But an Act 1 boss level opponent, as opposed to pride demons which are more Act 2 or 3 boss material.

Abominations are supposed to have the mage's magic added to their own. That probably makes most of them worse than ogres. If that was shown the way Gaider says he envisions it, I think the Templar case would start looking a lot better.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 07 juin 2013 - 11:27 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...
Their stance isn't reasonable. It is not unrealistic to fight zealously for a completely unreasonable cause; as causes go, there are probably more of them than reasonable ones, certainly more of them that take violent zealots.

Your oppinion. Again, people disagree.

Yet you insist on trying to force your opions as the ONLY thing and any attempt to even bring anything else to the table as a threat.

The OP wants all blood magic to be inherently corrupting, all abominations to be ultrapowerful, and the templars to win.

Nope. Never said that.

I want abominations and mages to match their fluff (thus, more powerfull)

I believe the blood magic (mind control in particular) to be inherently more TEMPTING.

And since you ask I do want a templar victory to be ONE of the possible endings.
And I want only grey, realistic endings. No sunshine and rainbows - regardless if mages or templars win, the cost is always high and no solution is perfect.
But this is utterly irrelevant to anything, as my prefferences have no bearing on the matter.

KainD wrote..

@Lotion Soronnar
Oh boy. You've masked your message of ''I want more templar content'' pretty well, got all sorts of people confused.

Wanting a few letters and more balanced (not extra) content is bad now?

I get you're a mage supporter KainD - that much is obvious - but I thout at least you had more sense than this.

[Dave of Canada]

Filament wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

*deleted content*

I would agree that the first abomination should be presented like an ogre, perhaps, as a boss level opponent. But an Act 1 boss level opponent, as opposed to pride demons which are more Act 2 or 3 boss material.

As far as gameplay strength, I'd like to see:
Tier 1: Boss Encounters, High Dragons, Pride Abomination
Tier 2: Pride Demon, Desire Abomination.
Tier 3: Ogre, Desire Demon, Empowered Blood Mages
Tier 4: Blood Mages, Reavers, Hurlock Emissary, Rage/Sloth/Hunger Abominations.
Tier 5: Mages, Hurlock Alpha, Templar, Rage/Sloth/Hunter demons
Tier 6: Bandits, Hurlocks and Genlocks, Corpses.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 07 juin 2013 - 11:29 .

[KainD]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Wanting a few letters and more balanced (not extra) content is bad now?

I get you're a mage supporter KainD - that much is obvious - but I thout at least you had more sense than this.

Oh God. I didn't say it was bad, I was just confused, your OP looked like some moral point to be made. 
But I got it already

[LobselVith8]

Hazegurl wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And Asunder was told with a heavy mage bias. It tries to villify Lambert for doing his job, of apprehending the murderer and preventing a mage rebellion.

I agree, it also matches the other post about how player do get a lot of the mage perspective but hardly any templar one. I made a joke post about how a player couldn't play as a Templar in DAO but it is true, you can't play as a Templar, you have no Templar companions, they don't even give you Templar companions in a game that's all about Templar/Mage conflict. You really have to pay attention to the story to see the Templar side of it all. DA2 didn't do a very good job of balancing it out but I got the message. Asunder certainly had a heavy mage perspective, once again you have to look past the 'We need our freedom" to see that Lambert was correct.

Alistair regards himself as a former templar, so I don't see why he doesn't count as a templar companion. He's fairly pro-templar when you speak to him, and even took the Chantry to task for how the organization treated the templars through the use of lyrium.

Also, Dragon Age II vilified mages to the point of stupidity. You had Decimus attacking Hawke and his moiety crew for thinking they were templars. Tahrone looked like a crack addict and sounded like a raving lunatic. Grace attacked Hawke even if the protagonist helped her escape the templars. Your mother is murdered by bad soap opera villain Quentin because she was identical to his deceased wife. You're forced to work for Meredith, even if you oppose the templars. At least one developer admitted that Orsino was written as a nemesis to avoid the mage ending being the good ending. Gaider even admitted that he left like players sided with mages by default, so we have an entire game that vilifies them at almost every turn.

My apostate Hawke didn't even get a mage POV. Hardly anyone noticed my protagonist was a mage, even when he used magic in front of them. The player never has to deal with the pitfalls of being a mage in a society where magic and mages are vilified. Hawke never had to endure the trials and tribulations of being an apostate in a templar controlled city.

As for Asunder, I don't think Lambert was correct.