1799 réponses à ce sujet

[The Elder King]

almostinsane99 wrote...

Blood magic is inherently dark. It is like a ten ton bomb. It cannot be trusted in the hands of anyone. Blood magic hasn't positively helped anyone in the games. Its closest beneficial use was splicing up body parts in a sick experiment.

Creation magic with studying of the body works fine.

Phylacteries are created using blood magic. The Joining could be considered blood magic. 

[GodWood]

TCBC_Freak wrote...
A lot of people talk about equality between mage treatment and mundane treatment; about the "prison" that mages are kept in... I've posted this before in a another tread, maybe more people will read it this time and actually use their brains when thinking about equality in a land like DA:

There is a big problem of resentment between the average person and mages. One of the reasons most people in Thedas don't like mages is because mages "have it easy" from the average person's point of view. Let me explain.

The average person is probably a farmer. He works for months doing hard labor in the hopes that after paying his bann (or equivalent noble in other nations) a portion of his crop he has enough left to feed his family for the rest of the year. Rats in his granary or a bad harvest could kill his family. He is out in the open exposed to the elements, a bad winter frost would be his doom, and things like raiders and darkspawn are a constant treat to him. Not only those threats but in some nations his family is subject to the lords whims. He has a lovely daughter? Well he prays that a knight doesn't happen by and take a liking to her or she'll be used and cast aside and if he does anything to stand up for her, he dies and his land will be seized. He hopes that his family can advance one day but for now he and his children can't read or write, they are blessed if they even have access to a priest or the like who can do those things and is willing to help them with keeping their books and setting up a will and such. He has to hope that if he dies or is killed for any one of a dozen reason (including but not limited to; a group of thieves, a young mage getting possessed before the Templar find him/her, or being called as a levy to fight in a noble's war) his family is taken in by another family member or they'll starve to death.

A mage, meanwhile, (from his point of view) gets to live in a big tower, with warm food and soft beds. Which his tax in no small part provides for. They get to learn to read and write and are protected from the elements and the bad people that are a treat to his family. And all they do is sit in their tower and read and play games and "study magic." Then he has to hear about these golden children revolting because their life is so hard. He sees them with power in their magic, power his family will never have and yet he hears them complain because one mage was beaten, abused, or a mage who was too weak to control himself/too scared he might be weak gets his magic taken away. Things his family faces every day from the nobility that is supposed to protect him the same as the Templar that are supposed to protect mages. He sees people who have the best things in life given to them for no reason other than the fact that they were born with a power he can never have and then they have the gal to "revolt" against it and potentially unleash demons that could come and kill his family? To give it all up because life is hard in the Circle? His life is hard, he'll probably be dead before his hair has a chance to turn grey, his children are lucky to survivor the winter, but the mages in their posh tower have it hard?

Now, I'm not saying he's right. Nor am I saying he has the right information, clearly his view is somewhat limited. But is it any wonder the mages are having trouble finding support in the majority of people? And do the mages honestly want "equality?" No, they don't, they want the life they have, a life better than many "minor" nobles have, and no one keeping them from losing control or studying magics that always lead to corruption like blood magic. That isn't freedom or equality.

QFT

Mage folk should really check their privilege.

[BlueMagitek]

Lathrim wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

Blood magic is inherently dark. It is like a ten ton bomb. It cannot be trusted in the hands of anyone. Blood magic hasn't positively helped anyone in the games. Its closest beneficial use was splicing up body parts in a sick experiment.

No, it is not inherently dark. Blood magic has many uses, not all of them what one'd call "dark". A weapon isn't blamed for the misdeeds it was used for - the wielder is.

There are good uses for Blood Magic.  And bad ones.  It doesn't help that blood magic is made more powerful the more pain inflicted.

[Senya]

None of my Mage characters needed blood magic to survive and they went through the same adventures as yours. Blood magic has also caused more harm than good in the games:

It established a link between Merrill and a Pride demon, who taught her it.

It made her unable to perform healing magic at all, if you checked her skill tree. This doesn't seem universal considering the player characters, but the implication is that Merrill sacrificed her healing magic.

Hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, were used to fuel it in the past.

Blood magic was used to enslave many ordinary people by one of the Blood Mage covens in Dragon Age II.

Merrill's learning blood magic led directly to Marethari's death. One can point out the narrative flaws in the story, but the writers intended to portray Merrill's blood magic as having a high cost.

Blood Magic canonically feeds on death and, all sources agree, that a botched experiment with blood magic using the blood of thousands of slaves and lyrium led to Tainting the first Magisters, leading to the Blights, Chant or no Chant.

One word: Harvester.

Quentin murdered who knows how many women for his Blood Magic experiments.

There was a slave sacrificed in World of Thedas to augment a Magister's power.

Compared to these, there have been three good uses:

Blood Magic the player uses- this is used to defeat your enemies, killing them. Also, Blood Heal drains life from your companions to heal yourself.

The Joining- Made necessary by an earlier Blood Magic experiment by Tevinter Magisters. The Joining is always fatal. You eventually turn into a ghoul and it enables you to sacrifice your immortal soul to stop the Archdemon. It cuts your lifespan in half.

Phylacteries- I think it'd be funny to see a pro-Mage player defend these. I don't like them myself.

There is also, as noted above, the fact that Blood Magic is made more powerful the more pain is inflicted.

Modifié par almostinsane99, 15 juin 2013 - 12:26 .

[Xilizhra]

It made her unable to perform healing magic at all, if you checked her skill tree. This doesn't seem universal considering the player characters, but the implication is that Merrill sacrificed her healing magic.

Er, no, it's just a bit of gameplay stupidity, like how Anders somehow couldn't use Entropy anymore.

Merrill's learning blood magic led directly to Marethari's death. One can point out the narrative flaws in the story, but the writers intended to portray Merrill's blood magic as having a high cost.

That's one interpretation, and Marethari's, but not the objective truth. Another one is that the whole thing came from Marethari's pride.

Also, you missed a good use: Alain waking up your sibling. Cleansing the Eluvian of darkspawn taint was also objectively good.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 15 juin 2013 - 12:33 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]almostinsane99 wrote...

None of my Mage characters needed blood magic to survive and they went through the same adventures as yours. Blood magic has also caused more harm than good in the games:

It established a link between Merrill and a Pride demon, who taught her it. [/quote]

I think Audacity and Merrill would have still conversed the few times they did had she not turned to blood magic, since she wanted to build an Eluvian and use the technology to benefit the People.

[quote]almostinsane99 wrote...

It made her unable to perform healing magic at all, if you checked her skill tree. This doesn't seem universal considering the player characters, but the implication is that Merrill sacrificed her healing magic. [/quote]

You're confusing game mechanics with the narrative. Anders was the healer; Merrill wasn't. It's as simple as that. There's nothing to suggest being a blood magic prevents a mage from using healing spells on other people, as even WoT mentions a blood mage healing someone else.

[quote]almostinsane99 wrote...

Hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, were used to fuel it in the past. [/quote]

The misuse of blood magic shouldn't vilify the entire school of magic.

[quote]almostinsane99 wrote...

Blood magic was used to enslave many ordinary people by one of the Blood Mage covens in Dragon Age II. [/quote]

We also have Grey Warden mages who have used blood magic for centuries to give them an edge against the darkspawn - the greatest threat that the world faced. We have Merrill using it to cleanse a shard of the corruption of the darkspawn taint. We have Finn using it to locate the Eluvian in the Dragonbone Wastes.

[quote]almostinsane99 wrote...

Merrill's learning blood magic led directly to Marethari's death. One can point out the narrative flaws in the story, but the writers intended to portray Merrill's blood magic as having a high cost. [/quote]

Marethari's decision to let Audacity loose from it's prison lead to her death.

[quote]almostinsane99 wrote...

Blood Magic canonically feeds on death and, all sources agree, that a botched experiment with blood magic using the blood of thousands of slaves and lyrium led to Tainting the first Magisters, leading to the Blights, Chant or no Chant. [/quote]

Given Corypheus' dialogue about the City and the first dwarven records, that's an issue for debate. Regardless, as you even acknowledge, the Joining leads to the creation of new Grey Wardens through the use of magically treated darkspawn blood, which prevented the darkspawn from destroying the whole of Thedas.

[quote]almostinsane99 wrote...

One word: Harvester. [/quote]

Two words: Grey Wardens.

[quote]almostinsane99 wrote...

Quentin murdered who knows how many women for his Blood Magic experiments. [/quote]

A result of Quentin's insanity. As we see with Alain and Merrill, blood magic doesn't automatically make a mage evil.

[quote]almostinsane99 wrote...

There was a slave sacrificed in World of Thedas to augment a Magister's power. [/quote]

Which makes blood magic a tool that can be used for good or bad purposes.

[quote]almostinsane99 wrote...

Compared to these, there have been three good uses:

Blood Magic the player uses- this is used to defeat your enemies, killing them. Also, Blood Heal drains life from your companions to heal yourself. [/quote]

In the same fashion as the Grey Warden mages who Duncan references in the Magi Origin.

[quote]almostinsane99 wrote...

The Joining- Made necessary by an earlier Blood Magic experiment by Tevinter Magisters. The Joining is always fatal. You eventually turn into a ghoul and it enables you to sacrifice your immortal soul to stop the Archdemon. It cuts your lifespan in half. [/quote]

And lead to the prevention of the end of the world. I think that's an important fact about the Joining.

[quote]almostinsane99 wrote...

Phylacteries- I think it'd be funny to see a pro-Mage player defend these. I don't like them myself. [/quote]

The phylacteries are pointed out as a form of blood magic, but the use of the phylacteries to hunt down mages isn't defended by some of us (as we see with the near murder of Aneirin as a young boy).

[quote]almostinsane99 wrote...

There is also, as noted above, the fact that Blood Magic is made more powerful the more pain is inflicted.[/quote]

Blood magic is tied to the physical; that doesn't make it inherently evil.

[The_11thDoctor]

the mages.

[Senya]

Most of those instances where Blood Magic was used for good was either in response to a catastrophe Blood Magic caused (the Blight) or where ordinary magic with lyrium could have sufficed (the Eluvian).

Blood magic is open to abuse in the same way that other magic simply is not. What reason would Anders, who is very much anti-Chantry and anti-Templar, have to oppose it if it's not more dangerous than any other type of magic? There are certain situations where it was required, but those are far between and don't justify everyday use. I am not convinced of its merits and even if I was, I'd still have the local branch of the new police force alerted in order to watch the Mages who research it should they become possessed or delve into its darker aspects.

[LobselVith8]

almostinsane99 wrote...

Most of those instances where Blood Magic was used for good was either in response to a catastrophe Blood Magic caused (the Blight) or where ordinary magic with lyrium could have sufficed (the Eluvian).

It's a tool that depends entirely on how the user applies it - whether it's for good or bad purposes.

almostinsane99 wrote...

Blood magic is open to abuse in the same way that other magic simply is not. What reason would Anders, who is very much anti-Chantry and anti-Templar, have to oppose it if it's not more dangerous than any other type of magic?

Anders opposes the Chantry controlled Circle, but he fully supports the religious views of the Andrastian Chantry - as we see with his religious debates with Merrill. I'm not surprised that he opposes blood magic, as that's a very typical Andrastian view.

almostinsane99 wrote...

There are certain situations where it was required, but those are far between and don't justify everyday use. I am not convinced of its merits and even if I was, I'd still have the local branch of the new police force alerted in order to watch the Mages who research it should they become possessed or delve into its darker aspects.

Everyday use? I suppose not. However, when it means the difference between life and death, I can understand why some mages use blood magic, especially when the templars can nullify their abilities otherwise. I have two protagonists so far who have used blood magic, and I imagine my new protagonist would use it as well (if the theories about the Circle mage background via the promo picture are true).

[Senya]

Anders rejected the Chantry dogma about Mages. It isn't so far to reject the part about blood magic and demons.

Assuming that peace is established, there will not be a need for blood magic to fight Templars. And both my Mage protagonists in Dragon Age: Origins and my mage Hawke refused to even consider it. My Wardens were both Aequitarian and my Hawke listened to his father's lessons.

As for its purposes, Blood Magic has been shown to be more at home with destructive magic and acquisition of magical power than actually helping people. If it's a grey ability, then it's a very dark grey.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I got the implication that Blood Magic tears at the Veil. At the very least, it has been used to tear the Veil.

[IanPolaris]

almostinsane99 wrote...

Anders rejected the Chantry dogma about Mages. It isn't so far to reject the part about blood magic and demons.

You haven't read Ander's manifesto in DA2 then.  Anders accepts Chantry religious dogma and uses it and the Chant of Light to argue that the secular representatives of the Chantry have got it wrong.  This is the tactic of one who very much accepts the overall Chantry dogma of magic.  A decent historical analogy would be the young Martin Luther who was a staunch Roman Catholic.

Assuming that peace is established, there will not be a need for blood magic to fight Templars. And both my Mage protagonists in Dragon Age: Origins and my mage Hawke refused to even consider it. My Wardens were both Aequitarian and my Hawke listened to his father's lessons.

That doesn't follow.  There could well be crimals or even other threats that have Templar like abilities.  Not only that but mind-control can aparently only be done by bloodmagic, and apparently it's the preferred way to summon spirits as well.  If you read asunder, there are some very good reasons (as in not evil) reason why you'd want to be able to summon spirits (like curing Tranquility to name one).  Also Mind Control would be just about the perfect police weapon/spell to capture and control prisoners with minimal risk and bodily harm.  Like everything else, Bloodmagic is a tool.  I would say it's an easily abused tool and thus it's use should be carefully regulated and probably illegal for most mages, but I would argue that bloodmagic is not inherently evil whatever the Chantry would have you think.

As for its purposes, Blood Magic has been shown to be more at home with destructive magic and acquisition of magical power than actually helping people. If it's a grey ability, then it's a very dark grey.

The Primal and Entropy schools say 'HI".

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I got the implication that Blood Magic tears at the Veil. At the very least, it has been used to tear the Veil.

Blood magic in of itself doesn't tear the veil as far as I know, but it does make the veil easier to cross/piece.  Of course you can tear the veil without using magic at all.  The Templars managed that in Northern Rivvain.  Just be willing to slaughter enough people.

-Polaris

[Plaintiff]

TCBC_Freak wrote...
The average person is probably a farmer. He works for months doing hard labor in the hopes that after paying his bann (or equivalent noble in other nations) a portion of his crop he has enough left to feed his family for the rest of the year. Rats in his granary or a bad harvest could kill his family. He is out in the open exposed to the elements, a bad winter frost would be his doom, and things like raiders and darkspawn are a constant treat to him. Not only those threats but in some nations his family is subject to the lords whims. He has a lovely daughter? Well he prays that a knight doesn't happen by and take a liking to her or she'll be used and cast aside and if he does anything to stand up for her, he dies and his land will be seized. He hopes that his family can advance one day but for now he and his children can't read or write, they are blessed if they even have access to a priest or the like who can do those things and is willing to help them with keeping their books and setting up a will and such. He has to hope that if he dies or is killed for any one of a dozen reason (including but not limited to; a group of thieves, a young mage getting possessed before the Templar find him/her, or being called as a levy to fight in a noble's war) his family is taken in by another family member or they'll starve to death.

Since we've seen exactly zero farms and no farmers, this is all pure conjecture based on medieval history, and has no actual relevance to anything going on in Thedas.

A mage, meanwhile, (from his point of view) gets to live in a big tower, with warm food and soft beds. Which his tax in no small part provides for.

If the farmer thinks his tax pays for the Circle, he's an idiot. The Circles are entirely self-sufficient, what comforts they have, they earned for themselves through the sale of magical artifacts and potions.

They get to learn to read and write and are protected from the elements and the bad people that are a treat to his family. And all they do is sit in their tower and read and play games and "study magic."

"Get to"? They have no choice in the matter.

If the farmer and his family are unable to read and write, that is not the Circle's fault.

Then he has to hear about these golden children revolting because their life is so hard. He sees them with power in their magic, power his family will never have and yet he hears them complain because one mage was beaten, abused, or a mage who was too weak to control himself/too scared he might be weak gets his magic taken away. Things his family faces every day from the nobility that is supposed to protect him the same as the Templar that are supposed to protect mages.

So he's also a giant hypocrite.

"Mages have virtually all the same problems as me but I'm totally justified in my ignorant racism because they don't get rained on as much, baw baw."

He sees people who have the best things in life given to them for no reason other than the fact that they were born with a power he can never have and then they have the gal to "revolt" against it and potentially unleash demons that could come and kill his family? To give it all up because life is hard in the Circle? His life is hard, he'll probably be dead before his hair has a chance to turn grey, his children are lucky to survivor the winter, but the mages in their posh tower have it hard?

All the "best things" in life except love, a family, or the right to be outside. All things that the farmer takes for granted.

Now, I'm not saying he's right. Nor am I saying he has the right information,

No, you're just saying that people are allowed to be bigots and get a free pass from critical thinking if their lives are "hard".

clearly his view is somewhat limited. But is it any wonder the mages are having trouble finding support in the majority of people?

Who says that they are?

And if the ignorant peasantry doesn't see how they could directly benefit from free magic, then screw them.

And do the mages honestly want "equality?"

Yes.

No, they don't, they want the life they have, a life better than many "minor" nobles have, and no one keeping them from losing control or studying magics that always lead to corruption like blood magic. That isn't freedom or equality.

Mages earn their way of life through the use of their abilities. That is exactly equality.

The Chantry doesn't feed or clothe or teach them, it simply locks them all up in a tower and leaves them to their own devices. The mages took it upon themselves to, by and large, form a peaceful society dedicated to learning and the batterment of mankind.

The Templars and the Chantry do not facilitate that, they actively impede it by subjecting the mages to treatment more typically found in a gulag than a school.

And if you couldn't be bothered to read it all or at least skim it enough to "get it," then you will miss my point by a country mile.

"If you don't agree with me, it's because you read my post wrong!"

Modifié par Plaintiff, 15 juin 2013 - 04:43 .

[The Red Onion]

Morocco Mole wrote...

To the left

As much as I subjectively sympathize with exactly this (whether you are being sarcastic or not), I feel uncomfortable that BW would steer the DA franchise and its story so as to force this debate to come to the fore. Though I support this artistic direction, I have major misgivings about it.

The moral of many BW stories dance around the theme of synthesis between two sides of a dialectic, and whether you support the one, the other, or both. But this isn't like Mass Effect, where the major rivalries do not simply allude to real life. Or Star Wars for the matter, where Jedi and Sith are such abstract categories that do not map well into real life.

When you invoke something like Maker/Chantry/Templar, the metaphor is too obviously connected to a single real. (It's a transcendental symbol, if you're feeling radical.) Because the symbol is TOO REAL, it makes people defensive as they retreat into the categories that define who they are. What's poignant to me is that DA1 wasn't like this. There was conflict with the darkspawn. The universe isn't set this way; it's steered this way.

And, for better or worse, the Mages do not have an equal connection to the real. It makes the mage position rather diffuse, and it becomes a construct that is framed purely in opposition to Templars and what they represent. It is only the mage fan that doesn't stand FOR anything outside the metaphor.  Thus it doesn't pit one identity against another, but pits "normative identification" against "no identification" in the realm of the real. Either the creators of DA2 are really adhering to a radical tradition that drives a wedge into the crowd, or they've hit on that wedge by accident. Seems they're playing with fire either way, and it's beside the point that many firmly know which way they will burn.

So, to answer what you said assuming no sarcasm, while the Templars can (albeit imperfectly) map to the RL right via the blatantly transcendental methaphor, the mages don't map onto much of anything. So a purist can argue that Thedas has no left, which, in the realm of Thedas, disarticulates the notion of rightness as well.

Don't know if this is intended by the authors of DA2 or not, but identifications with the Chantry is transcendental while other identifications grow more and more diffuse as you step further away from the Chantry. Next most literal symbol is probably Qunari, but compared to the Chantry the allusion is more diffuse by a long shot. Then come the slaves, and finally the mages, elves, and dwarfs. Thus on a deeper level, the allegorical question posed by the narrative is not the dialectic between templar and mage, but whether you are solely for or against the Chantry and what they are insinuated to represent. It's beside the point whether I subjectively would pose a similar question. I just wonder objectively whether this imbalance is intentional, and I'm certainlly not surprised at the defensiveness that such a framing would ellicit.

We've already seen arguments around taxation, weapon control, revolution versus reform, and other political signifiers spanning the whole nine yards. The only thing I have to *add* is this. That such invocations, in my view, do not truly come from the left--right opposition between mage and templar that you'd think they represent. Rather, they solely come from the perceived rightness of templars alone, because the mages lack a cohesive philosophy that is equally allegorical. The "manifesto" in the game, btw. is nowhere as cohesive and expansive as the mega-symbol of the Chantry.

That just gives another reason for me to try a variety of allegiances over multiple playthroughs.


But If it's sarcasm, well, it's bitten but not swallowed.

Modifié par alexbing88, 15 juin 2013 - 11:35 .

[Ieldra]

@alexbing:
I do not agree that there is no recognizable theme to the mages you can positively identify with. Mages embody the theme of empowering the individual, templars the theme of subsumption under the will of a community established by tradition. It is very apparent in the extremes of both sides - Tevinter, where the powerful enjoy unrestricted freedom by their own innate power which cannot be separated from them (i.e. it does not lie in a role, and thus is not dependent on the agreement of your social environment like other kinds of power), and qunari society, where everyone's bound to fixed roles. Both extremes are painted as bad of course, which makes it possible for anyone to define themselves apart from the extreme positions but still take a position on the line between the extremes.

What you call "no identification" is exactly the point here, since individuals become empowered if they can define themselves apart from, and in opposition to, established traditions and their restrictions. There can be no common theme apart from the autonomy itself on the mages' side because that there is no such thing is exactly the point. To expect a cohesive philosophy from the mages' side is like expecting one from real-world atheists.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 juin 2013 - 12:17 .

[MisterJB]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

A lot of people talk about equality between mage treatment and mundane treatment; about the "prison" that mages are kept in... I've posted this before in a another tread, maybe more people will read it this time and actually use their brains when thinking about equality in a land like DA:

There is a big problem of resentment between the average person and mages. One of the reasons most people in Thedas don't like mages is because mages "have it easy" from the average person's point of view. Let me explain.

The average person is probably a farmer. He works for months doing hard labor in the hopes that after paying his bann (or equivalent noble in other nations) a portion of his crop he has enough left to feed his family for the rest of the year. Rats in his granary or a bad harvest could kill his family. He is out in the open exposed to the elements, a bad winter frost would be his doom, and things like raiders and darkspawn are a constant treat to him. Not only those threats but in some nations his family is subject to the lords whims. He has a lovely daughter? Well he prays that a knight doesn't happen by and take a liking to her or she'll be used and cast aside and if he does anything to stand up for her, he dies and his land will be seized. He hopes that his family can advance one day but for now he and his children can't read or write, they are blessed if they even have access to a priest or the like who can do those things and is willing to help them with keeping their books and setting up a will and such. He has to hope that if he dies or is killed for any one of a dozen reason (including but not limited to; a group of thieves, a young mage getting possessed before the Templar find him/her, or being called as a levy to fight in a noble's war) his family is taken in by another family member or they'll starve to death.

A mage, meanwhile, (from his point of view) gets to live in a big tower, with warm food and soft beds. Which his tax in no small part provides for. They get to learn to read and write and are protected from the elements and the bad people that are a treat to his family. And all they do is sit in their tower and read and play games and "study magic." Then he has to hear about these golden children revolting because their life is so hard. He sees them with power in their magic, power his family will never have and yet he hears them complain because one mage was beaten, abused, or a mage who was too weak to control himself/too scared he might be weak gets his magic taken away. Things his family faces every day from the nobility that is supposed to protect him the same as the Templar that are supposed to protect mages. He sees people who have the best things in life given to them for no reason other than the fact that they were born with a power he can never have and then they have the gal to "revolt" against it and potentially unleash demons that could come and kill his family? To give it all up because life is hard in the Circle? His life is hard, he'll probably be dead before his hair has a chance to turn grey, his children are lucky to survivor the winter, but the mages in their posh tower have it hard?

Now, I'm not saying he's right. Nor am I saying he has the right information, clearly his view is somewhat limited. But is it any wonder the mages are having trouble finding support in the majority of people? And do the mages honestly want "equality?" No, they don't, they want the life they have, a life better than many "minor" nobles have, and no one keeping them from losing control or studying magics that always lead to corruption like blood magic. That isn't freedom or equality.

And if you couldn't be bothered to read it all or at least skim it enough to "get it," then you will miss my point by a country mile.

The truth, this man speaks it.
Where were the options in DA2 to tell Orsino to go talk a walk in Darktown before warping about how "opressed" mages are? Or ask Anders in Awakening if he had ever seen a single mage revolting because they were starving?

Modifié par MisterJB, 15 juin 2013 - 12:23 .

[ManOfSteel]

Templars.

[Xilizhra]

The truth, this man speaks it.
Where were the options in DA2 to tell Orsino to go talk a walk in Darktown before warping about how "opressed" mages are? Or ask Anders in Awakening if he had ever seen a single mage revolting because they were starving?

Cole, for one, starved to death. Just throwing it out there.

Also, the guy you're quoting retracted many of his points earlier.

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
Cole, for one, starved to death. Just throwing it out there.

You know, usually I would say something like "True but a single person being forgotten; an event that shamed the templars; is not the same as the popular revolt wtinessed in Awakening."

But, I think that, just once, I'm going to try to "argue" like you do; my inspiration will be "Grand Clerica Elthina supported Mother Petrice based on nothing". Ahem...

"No, he didn't. There never was a Cole, it was all a farse conducted by s spirit and since we've seen one crazy ass spirit, they must all be the same.
Death to Templars!"

Hum, it's a lot easier not having to rely on any evidence beyond my own imagination. No wonder you do it all the time.
No, if you'll excuse me, I need to wash my hands.

Modifié par MisterJB, 15 juin 2013 - 12:54 .

[Xilizhra]

You know, usually I would say something like "True but a single person being forgotten; an event that shamed the templars; is not the same as the popular revolt wtinessed in Awakening."

Which was an event itself instigated by nobles trying to take down the Warden-Commander, I should point out. The only time we've seen people rioting of their own volition is when attacking the Alienage in the epilogues.

[DKJaigen]

almostinsane99 wrote...

Most of those instances where Blood Magic was used for good was either in response to a catastrophe Blood Magic caused (the Blight) or where ordinary magic with lyrium could have sufficed (the Eluvian).

Blood magic is open to abuse in the same way that other magic simply is not. What reason would Anders, who is very much anti-Chantry and anti-Templar, have to oppose it if it's not more dangerous than any other type of magic? There are certain situations where it was required, but those are far between and don't justify everyday use. I am not convinced of its merits and even if I was, I'd still have the local branch of the new police force alerted in order to watch the Mages who research it should they become possessed or delve into its darker aspects.

Mastery of bloodmagic is required just like any other form of magic. To  remain in ignorance of it is to invite a disaster on a great scale. You say that bloodmagic caused the blight. I say your wrong the black city caused it. What is the black city. where did it come from and how did it create the darkspawn. These questions need to be answerd.

[MisterJB]

The event is only instigated if the Warden-Commander didn't already kill the instigators through the Dark Wolf's info.
Oh and the history of Thedas is filled to the brim with revolts from the slave revolts in Kirkwall to Andraste's own rebellion. Plus, there are more revolts the Warden can witness or caused beyond humans attacking the Alienage such as elves revolting if Soris marries a human or a mob of the people of Amaranthine attacking the Vigil if the city is destroyed by the Commander,

[The Red Onion]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@alexbing:
I do not agree that there is no recognizable theme to the mages you can positively identify with. Mages embody the theme of empowering the individual, templars the theme of subsumption under the will of a community established by tradition. It is very apparent in the extremes of both sides - Tevinter, where the powerful enjoy unrestricted freedom by their own innate power which cannot be separated from them (i.e. it does not lie in a role, and thus is not dependent on the agreement of your social environment like other kinds of power), and qunari society, where everyone's bound to fixed roles. Both extremes are painted as bad of course, which makes it possible for anyone to define themselves apart from the extreme positions but still take a position on the line between the extremes.

What you call "no identification" is exactly the point here, since individuals become empowered if they can define themselves apart from, and in opposition to, established traditions and their restrictions. There can be no common theme apart from the autonomy itself on the mages' side because that there is no such thing is exactly the point. To expect a cohesive philosophy from the mages' side is like expecting one from real-world atheists.

I appreciate the critique, and I'll attempt a defense. (and hope I haven't misinterpreted your points)

I agree that the individualism / collectivism dichotomy is a somewhat well-grilled one in discourses of social conflict. But the Collectivist aspect of the Templars is so overwhelmed by the Religious aspect that the former carries little literary effectiveness. (Or is that just my subjective perception? I can defer to your judgement on this one.)

I also agree that that individualism is an identifiable "ism" in its own right, and often a cornerstone of centrist and liberterian discorses. But poignantly missing from individualist philosophies is a dogmatic adherence to a notion of structural "justice" (a la Anders). Also the Tevinter discourses, that extends an individual's control so far as to completely erode that of another (consider the Banestor scrolls that frame the mind as an "organ of reason" that is open to interference) is resonant with a quasi-Nietzchean stance where there are no rules and everything is permitted. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that while real-life individualism is reasonably cohesive, the in-game mage position is actually a mish-mash of real-life schools that a traditional theist would lump together, but in truth are altogether diffuse.

The mages are actually a stiching of disparate schools that are only connected by the one thread: that they run afoul of religion (not tradition or collectivism, but religion per se). For example, despite how the actions of Anders and the actions of Tevinter might evoke a similar disgust in some characters and fans, we cannot simply reduce Tevinter to an "extreme Anders" or vice versa. And that one might respect Anders a tad more than the Tevinters cannot simply be reduced to "a matter of degree" but rather a matter of basics.

At the risk of stirring things up, I can go a little more blunt on this to say that the only hope of even symbolic cohesion that I see, let along real ones, is actually blood magic. It has a tradition and a canon, dating back to Dumat, with a distinct, if repungant, collection of stances on nature, magic, and governance (which is in fact quasi-collectivist, in my view) . But in framing blood magic as a marginal school, rather than at the forefront, the story is clear that they want blood magic to be seen by the fans as a desperate/seductive/deviant means, and not an end on its own. Even then, the closest analogue I can think of to blood magic is rationalism, and even that is a huge stretch.

That's why I think the narrative covertly has a "Chantry gaze" - its critique of the Chantry notwithstanding. And it's also why I feel that the mages' position is precisely one of opposition WITHOUT autonomy, because whatever cohesive stance they muster is purely contingent on a Chantry.

Modifié par alexbing88, 15 juin 2013 - 01:26 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Also, you missed a good use: Alain waking up your sibling. Cleansing the Eluvian of darkspawn taint was also objectively good.

That's a very silly statmenet, given that we have no idea what the Eluvian actually does.