1799 réponses à ce sujet

[Huyna]

I am standing right in the middle, praying to The Maker to talk some sense into both them.

[Luiren]

Huyna wrote...

I am standing right in the middle, praying to The Maker to talk some sense into both them.

Maker be praised!    Let the doomsday party begin.


On a side note, thanks everyone, for continuing this thread....

[Sable Rhapsody]

Huyna wrote...

I am standing right in the middle, praying to The Maker to talk some sense into both them.

Never mind the Maker.  Grab a few of Aveline's "DON'T" signs and just start hitting the mages and templars with them.  The message's bound to sink in sooner or later.  Either that or their heads will cave in...a win either way 

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

For the same reason a magister or a mage that is fighting templars might join a pro-templar protagonist. The threat from the demons might be higher than you think. Maybe they'd prefer to fight together than die against demons.

Even some companions in Origins left The Warden's side during the Fifth Blight if the protagonist took action that they disagreed with morally, and in some occassions, would fight The Warden to the death.

If the protagonist is a mage - as some have speculated from the rings promo that a Circle mage background might be possible - I find it a little odd that Cassandra and Cullen would take orders from an apostate who has taken a stance that they might morally disagree with (if we trust the survey and some other implied information about the new protagonist being a leader of the Inquisition).

[The Elder King]

@Lobsel, it is actually stated in the official site and by Flynn in the E3 interview that we'll lead the Inquisition.
About companions leaving the Warden in DAO, the same could happen in DAI: Cullen and Cassandra could join the PC for the greater good (maybe they joined directly the Inquisition), but then leave if your actions are against their beliefs.
After all, the Inquisition will be likely formed by both mages and non mages. People with different views might be present regardless, but cooperate because they believe stopping the demons is too important.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Before anything, anything else, the templars must be eradicated. Surrendered ones will be permitted to live if possible. After that, we'll need to build up something new with the mages, the possibilities of which we'll see when we get there.

While I think the way how mages are treated is wrong and I totally
understand their uprising its better to fight for the templars

Never in ten thousand years. Every last one of them who continues to stand against us will burn.

Oh boy....

Some people think that one side needs to win when two sides are at war with one war. It's not really a radical concept. Also, I think she prefers "Malcolm X-y", to use a term from another pro-templar poster.

[ParatrooperSean]

I stand firmly with the mages. I haven't done a single play through where I side with the Templars, not even out of curiosity. I just can't bring myself to do it.

Imprisoning people and subjugating them because of how they were born goes against everything I stand for.

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

@Lobsel, it is actually stated in the official site and by Flynn in the E3 interview that we'll lead the Inquisition.

I've never read that interview. Do you have a link, by chance?

hhh89 wrote...

About companions leaving the Warden in DAO, the same could happen in DAI: Cullen and Cassandra could join the PC for the greater good (maybe they joined directly the Inquisition), but then leave if your actions are against their beliefs.
After all, the Inquisition will be likely formed by both mages and non mages. People with different views might be present regardless, but cooperate because they believe stopping the demons is too important.

That would make sense. Hopefully, it's not like Dragon Age II, where you simply get a boost of Rivalry (respect) with Fenris if Hawke supports slavery and gets his own elven slave, or where similar characters give Rivalry even when you do things that they morally oppose.

[Herr Uhl]

LobselVith8 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

@Lobsel, it is actually stated in the official site and by Flynn in the E3 interview that we'll lead the Inquisition.

I've never read that interview. Do you have a link, by chance?

Guessing it is this interview:

And the official site states this.

It falls to you to restore order as you lead the Inquisition and hunt down the agents of chaos - your choices will forever change the Dragon Age.

[LobselVith8]

Herr Uhl wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

@Lobsel, it is actually stated in the official site and by Flynn in the E3 interview that we'll lead the Inquisition.

I've never read that interview. Do you have a link, by chance?

Guessing it is this interview:

And the official site states this.

It falls to you to restore order as you lead the Inquisition and hunt down the agents of chaos - your choices will forever change the Dragon Age.

Gracias, Herr Uhl.

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...

That would make sense. Hopefully, it's not like Dragon Age II, where you simply get a boost of Rivalry (respect) with Fenris if Hawke supports slavery and gets his own elven slave, or where similar characters give Rivalry even when you do things that they morally oppose.

Yeah, I agree. Though Gaider said that they abandoned the rivarly system, so there shouldn't be this kind of problem.

[TK514]

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

That would make sense. Hopefully, it's not like Dragon Age II, where you simply get a boost of Rivalry (respect) with Fenris if Hawke supports slavery and gets his own elven slave, or where similar characters give Rivalry even when you do things that they morally oppose.

Yeah, I agree. Though Gaider said that they abandoned the rivarly system, so there shouldn't be this kind of problem.

did he?  I missed that post/interview.

[duckley]

I am standing  - or should I say teetering- on the fence. I see merit to both sides of the argument and no simple solutions.
In the end I will stand  where my moral compass directs me as the story unfolds. I do hope there will be a  comprimise scenario.
 

[ParatrooperSean]

duckley wrote...

I am standing  - or should I say teetering- on the fence. I see merit to both sides of the argument and no simple solutions.
In the end I will stand  where my moral compass directs me as the story unfolds. I do hope there will be a  comprimise scenario.
 

For the life of me I will never understand how players can see moral ambiguity in imprisoning an entire group simply because they were born a certain way.

[KR4U55]

I think either way will return to a loop. Side with Templars, you'll be locking and abusing mages for a couple of millenia until they get tired of it (again) and put a grand rebellion. Side with the Mages, you get abusive mages out of control running stuff until a group of well trained soldiers manage to defeat them and lock them up.

I'm pretty sure there will be some pretty extreme desicions to make and, you read it here first, one of the sides, specifically the Templars, will come up with a plan to cut the bond of humanity with the Fade and the Mages want to stop them. I thought of that last night while walking my dog after playing KotOR II and I think it makes sense, I mean, no demons problem, forever, and techology marches on. Most probably there will be some faliure in the future to ensure new Dragon Age games, but that's my theory.

[Palidane]

ParatrooperSean wrote...

duckley wrote...

I am standing  - or should I say teetering- on the fence. I see merit to both sides of the argument and no simple solutions.
In the end I will stand  where my moral compass directs me as the story unfolds. I do hope there will be a  comprimise scenario.
 

For the life of me I will never understand how players can see moral ambiguity in imprisoning an entire group simply because they were born a certain way.

Maybe because we have too? We're not imprisoning them because they have different colored skin, we're imprisoning them because they can shoot lightning out of their hands and summon demons and get possessed and control minds and cause earthquakes and perform blood sacrifices and unleash darkspawn etc etc.

Modifié par Palidane, 14 juin 2013 - 05:00 .

[SamFlagg]

ParatrooperSean wrote...

duckley wrote...

I am standing  - or should I say teetering- on the fence. I see merit to both sides of the argument and no simple solutions.
In the end I will stand  where my moral compass directs me as the story unfolds. I do hope there will be a  comprimise scenario.
 

For the life of me I will never understand how players can see moral ambiguity in imprisoning an entire group simply because they were born a certain way.

I would say it largely has to do with nearly every example of a mage not in the players party turns out to be a horrible abomination if they aren't in the circle, and some being in the circle doesn't help them that much.  It's not so much that it is morally ambiguous to imprison this group of people, it's just that this group of people has a particular talent that more or less lends itself to dark pacts with demons if not constrained by anything else.

I mean if a mage isn't in your party, how many of them didn't end up going on a murderous rampage of some sort with their magic? 

[MilaBanilla]

Palidane wrote...

ParatrooperSean wrote...

duckley wrote...

I am standing  - or should I say teetering- on the fence. I see merit to both sides of the argument and no simple solutions.
In the end I will stand  where my moral compass directs me as the story unfolds. I do hope there will be a  comprimise scenario.
 

For the life of me I will never understand how players can see moral ambiguity in imprisoning an entire group simply because they were born a certain way.

Maybe because we have too? We're not imprisoning them because they have different colored skin, we're imprisoning them because they can shoot lightning out of their hands and summon demons and get possessed and control minds and cause earthquakes and perform blood sacrifices and unleash darkspawn etc etc.

Also, to protect the mages from crazy townsfolk. I just imagine a frighten child suddenly burning a barn accidentally and the townsfolk will kill the child because he is a mage. 
The Circle is a place where mages can master and control their powers.

[cactusberry]

I am for neither side strongly, if we have to choose between them I'll see how the game influences me. If I HAD to side now, I'd pick Templars.

[Hadeedak]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Huyna wrote...

I am standing right in the middle, praying to The Maker to talk some sense into both them.

Never mind the Maker.  Grab a few of Aveline's "DON'T" signs and just start hitting the mages and templars with them.  The message's bound to sink in sooner or later.  Either that or their heads will cave in...a win either way 

Not going to lie, that sounds like the best idea.

[Sable Rhapsody]

SamFlagg wrote...
I mean if a mage isn't in your party, how many of them didn't end up going on a murderous rampage of some sort with their magic? 

If we're talking about the mages who actually have some kind of character and plot involvement: First Enchanter Irving, Malcolm Hawke, Niall, Sketch, Finn, Ella, Emile de Launcet, arguably Alain (the derpy Starkhaven apostate from DA2)...and that's all I can think of.  Sketch and Finn are stretching it, since they're DLC characters for DA:O, where you pretty much had to have a mage in your party to function.

Eight sane non-party mages out of the whole Dragon Age cast.  That's...a pretty bad record.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 14 juin 2013 - 07:20 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

If the mages ever become a problem, the templars will just call on their big brothers



Suffer not the Witch Mage to live!

[Tarek]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If the mages ever become a problem, the templars will just call on their big brothers



Suffer not the Witch Mage to live!

LOL

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If the mages ever become a problem, the templars will just call on their big brothers



Suffer not the Witch Mage to live!

Kill'em all.  The Maker will know his own.  Lovely.

-Polaris

[Xilizhra]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

SamFlagg wrote...
I mean if a mage isn't in your party, how many of them didn't end up going on a murderous rampage of some sort with their magic? 

If we're talking about the mages who actually have some kind of character and plot involvement: First Enchanter Irving, Malcolm Hawke, Niall, Sketch, Finn, Ella, Emile de Launcet, arguably Alain (the derpy Starkhaven apostate from DA2)...and that's all I can think of.  Sketch and Finn are stretching it, since they're DLC characters for DA:O, where you pretty much had to have a mage in your party to function.

Eight sane non-party mages out of the whole Dragon Age cast.  That's...a pretty bad record.

You're leaving out everyone who was forcibly possessed, firstly. Secondly, "some kind of character and plot development" is cutting out many background characters who are quite sane and still contributing to the vast majority of mages who are just fine. Finally, there's a bias to confronting rampaging mages because you're an adventurer and are drawn to trouble spots.