204 réponses à ce sujet

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

Mages may be used to enhance the corruption when there isn't any arch demon blood available

Except there was some available. The Ferelden Wardens had some in Denerim. Unless you're suggesting that they didn't bother bringing any to Ostagar? If, as you suggest, it lets you skip having mages, then they would use it in order to keep the Joining's nature between as small a group as possible.

IIRC, the Denerim vault was sealed and wasn't opened till later.

And you mean to tell me Duncan couldn't have opened it? Riordan knew the lock combination, and he's assigned to an entirely different country.

Also, I'd reckon the Archdemon blood is valubale, so why use it if you don't have to?

If you require the mages either way, then that's a good question. On the other hand, in your hypothetical scenario where you require either the mages or the Archdemon blood, not using the rarer blood requires you to tell the Circle mages you are using blood magic. With a complement of Templars in the same camp as you are. This really seems like the sort of secret that would be kept to as few people as possible, which means that if you could choose between using Archdemon blood and mages, the choice is obvious. Just because I think the high ranking Templars probably know the essential secrets of the Wardens doesn't mean a rank and file Templar will react well.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 15 juin 2013 - 12:35 .

[Urazz]

Beerfish wrote...

Redcliffe. End of story. There are boat loads of other examples but that one is a beacon. Mages are a great danger by their very nature. As people they are no moe dangerous than any other sector. There are good and bad templars, good and bad inn keepers, warriors, lords. etc etc.

The unfortunate thing for mages is not as much the power they wield but the potential damage if they are taken over by a demon, through no fault of their own.

I'll restate something I've said a number of times about this. Don't think of this as if you were a templar, or a mage, or a member of the chantry. Look at it through the eyes of the common citizen or part of a group that has no stake with either power group.

You will have a significant % of the people who see the control of mages as necessary, even if they sympathize with them. This was a real basis in the early talk about Dragon Age in general, magic viewed with suspicion.

I think the moderates like myself think more along the lines that the Circles should serve more as schools of learning for mages to control their power and learn to resist demons but they shouldn't be locked up in the towers forever.  Templars should still be around but mainly to hunt down mages that are abusing their power.

[Steppenwolf]

GodWood wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...

GodWood wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...
This is all nonsense. No one forces anyone to stay in Orzammar, stay under the thumb of nobility, etc. They have the ability to leave and change their role in the situation, which is the definition of freedom.

Stupid starving kids in Africa.

They should stop being stupid and starving and just move away and be rich.

That's a ridiculous response. I never implied anything like that. If wild hyperbole is the only response you guys can muster then why bother responding at all?

No one forces anyone to stay in Orzammar, stay under the thumb of nobility, etc. They have the ability to leave and change their role in the situation

They have the ability to leave and change their role in the situation

You said it yourself; the casteless can just stop being poor, move away and become rich.

You're just lying now. I never said anything about becoming rich. Don't lie to prove your point. It undermines your point and makes you look petty.

GodWood wrote...
Your reading comprehension is terrible.

The irony is just... too much.

[GodWood]

Filament wrote...
I thought you were saying they don't have freedom as a point of comparison to people in Thedas who don't have freedom, and because people in Thedas don't have freedom, mages shouldn't complain about not having freedom either. Actually that is what you said.

No it is not.

I made no statement on the mage situation. I was pointing out the stupidity of the assertion that the poor should basically just "stop being poor" by using an easy real world parallel.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

1) You don't need mages to create grey wardens. You can kill the darkspawn without them. You only need the Grey Warden for hte Archdemon. So you only need a few.

The fact that mages are used, the use of darkspawn blood, the fact that Archdemon blood isn't limitless, and that not every Joining is successful, would suggest that mages are vital for the creation of new Grey Wardens.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

2) Taint infection cannot be healed (that we know off). Injuries and desease? the old-fashioned way. MEDICAL SCIENCE!

Merrill cleansed the shard of the darkspawn taint. Perhaps magic has a solution. And the developers addressed that Anders' symbiosis with Justice might have lead to the elimination of his Calling.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

3) Mages and abominations open the portals. No mages, no portals.

We don't know who opened the portals.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

4) Other races have better strategy and equipment and are less mindless. 

Duncan points out how useful mages are against darkspawn in the Magi Origin, and Chantry history notes how they were the greatest asset against the Qunari during the New Exalted Marches. Mages have also played a role during the Blights. I wouldn't disregard their usefulness.

[Steppenwolf]

GodWood wrote...

Filament wrote...
I thought you were saying they don't have freedom as a point of comparison to people in Thedas who don't have freedom, and because people in Thedas don't have freedom, mages shouldn't complain about not having freedom either. Actually that is what you said.

No it is not.

I made no statement on the mage situation. I was pointing out the stupidity of the assertion that the poor should basically just "stop being poor" by using an easy real world parallel.

You're pointing out the stupidity of an assertion that no one made. Take your own advice and improve your reading comprehension.

[GodWood]

BasilKarlo wrote...
You're just lying now. I never said anything about becoming rich.

Christ on a stick I'll put it in your exact words.

You said they don't have to live in their terrible conditions (i.e. tunder the thumb of nobility) and can "change their role in the situation". Now by "changing their role" you more than likely mean "stop being poor" and logical the deduction one can make from this nonsense is that they can stop being poor they just choose not too.

Intended or not this is the implication of your post.

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

[Steppenwolf]

GodWood wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...
You're just lying now. I never said anything about becoming rich.

Christ on a stick I'll put it in your exact words.

You said they don't have to live in their terrible conditions (i.e. tunder the thumb of nobility) and can "change their role in the situation". Now by "changing their role" you more than likely mean "stop being poor" and logical the deduction one can make from this nonsense is that they can stop being poor they just choose not too.

Intended or not this is the implication of your post.

You're imposing your own views onto my posts. I never implied that at all. You can't just decide that someone meant something they didn't say and then argue against that point that was never made.

[GodWood]

BasilKarlo wrote...
You're imposing your own views onto my posts. I never implied that at all. You can't just decide that someone meant something they didn't say and then argue against that point that was never made.

Morocco pointed out roughly the same thing.

Filament wrote...
Now I just think you are conflating poor with destitute.

Those are synonyms.

[Steppenwolf]

GodWood wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...
You're imposing your own views onto my posts. I never implied that at all. You can't just decide that someone meant something they didn't say and then argue against that point that was never made.

Morocco pointed out roughly the same thing

What?

[GodWood]

Filament wrote...
You point to people in destitution who don't have the means to escape their situation,

I put to the people who he was referring to; those under the thumb of nobility and the casteless. 

While the Chevalier example we are talking about is info we got from a woman who was able to escape her situation by moving to Ferelden.

She was a petty bourgeois merchant in the richest city in Thedas. A single incident of a reasonably well off woman being able to move to another country does not mean the majority have that luxury.

Modifié par GodWood, 15 juin 2013 - 01:00 .

[Runningleaf]

Beerfish wrote...

Redcliffe. End of story. There are boat loads of other examples but that one is a beacon. Mages are a great danger by their very nature. As people they are no moe dangerous than any other sector. There are good and bad templars, good and bad inn keepers, warriors, lords. etc etc.

The unfortunate thing for mages is not as much the power they wield but the potential damage if they are taken over by a demon, through no fault of their own.

I'll restate something I've said a number of times about this. Don't think of this as if you were a templar, or a mage, or a member of the chantry. Look at it through the eyes of the common citizen or part of a group that has no stake with either power group.

You will have a significant % of the people who see the control of mages as necessary, even if they sympathize with them. This was a real basis in the early talk about Dragon Age in general, magic viewed with suspicion.

response, Denerium alianage. they get "Cleansed" at the whim of the Arl.
no different then what the deamon did. As far as i can tell Mages and even abominations are no more dangerous then the powerfull, beutifull, charismatic, or insain. though people may fear them more.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Problem one: The mages can do this whether they wish it or no, thanks to that abomination thing. In this state, any mage can cause devestation almost no mundanes are capable of. The vast majority of mundanes can't take out a city.
Problem two: Having apostate mages running around can make the powerful, beautiful, or charismatic more dangerous. Howe had apostate mages under his control, and he is shown to have used their abilities to his advantage. And how much worse could a bandit leader become if he hires apostates?
Problem three: A mage can be much more dangerous than a simple crazy man. A single mage is a match for most non-mages in a fight, whereas if a simple mundane crazy man finds himself face to face with the guards, he's probably done with.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 15 juin 2013 - 03:39 .

[Dave of Canada]

Runningleaf wrote...

response, Denerium alianage. they get "Cleansed" at the whim of the Arl.
no different then what the deamon did. As far as i can tell Mages and even abominations are no more dangerous then the powerfull, beutifull, charismatic, or insain. though people may fear them more.

A noble who slaughters people does so with men under his command, he slaughters the people and the people are on even ground to fight back against their supposed killers. The nobleman remains unpunished and remains in his lord's court.

The mage who slaughters people does so by himself whether he wants to or not, he kills everyone and raises them as undead to serve him all the while destroying the buildings around him. Ignoring the potential for an undead army, the two cases we've seen/heard of an abomination possessing a child resulted in the massacre of an entire village.

The fact that demons amplify a mage's power means that non-children becoming possessed would be far more intimidating.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 15 juin 2013 - 04:48 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Duncan points out how useful mages are against darkspawn in the Magi Origin, and Chantry history notes how they were the greatest asset against the Qunari during the New Exalted Marches. Mages have also played a role during the Blights. I wouldn't disregard their usefulness.

Usefull is not the same as vital.

[dragonflight288]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Duncan points out how useful mages are against darkspawn in the Magi Origin, and Chantry history notes how they were the greatest asset against the Qunari during the New Exalted Marches. Mages have also played a role during the Blights. I wouldn't disregard their usefulness.

Usefull is not the same as vital.

Alistair makes it clear that preparations for the joining require magic and lyrium in Origins. The creation of wardens NEEDS mages. Mages are vital in the creation of new Wardens.

[Lotion Soronarr]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Duncan points out how useful mages are against darkspawn in the Magi Origin, and Chantry history notes how they were the greatest asset against the Qunari during the New Exalted Marches. Mages have also played a role during the Blights. I wouldn't disregard their usefulness.

Usefull is not the same as vital.

Alistair makes it clear that preparations for the joining require magic and lyrium in Origins. The creation of wardens NEEDS mages. Mages are vital in the creation of new Wardens.

Nope.
It is made clear they are not.

[The Elder King]

dragonflight288 wrote...


Alistair makes it clear that preparations for the joining require magic and lyrium in Origins. The creation of wardens NEEDS mages. Mages are vital in the creation of new Wardens.

It seems that archdemon's blood alone is enough for creating the Wardens.
I do remember that Riordan said that he ordered the preparation for the Joining when trying to convince you to make Loghain a GW, but I don't remember if he talked about mages.

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

It seems that archdemon's blood alone is enough for creating the Wardens.
I do remember that Riordan said that he ordered the preparation for the Joining when trying to convince you to make Loghain a GW, but I don't remember if he talked about mages. 

Archdemon blood isn't infinite, and the Joining isn't always successful. So I think the point that mages are needed is still valid.

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

It seems that archdemon's blood alone is enough for creating the Wardens.
I do remember that Riordan said that he ordered the preparation for the Joining when trying to convince you to make Loghain a GW, but I don't remember if he talked about mages. 

Archdemon blood isn't infinite, and the Joining isn't always successful. So I think the point that mages are needed is still valid.

I agre that they'd be needed for the reasons you stated, though my point is that they weren't necessary for creating Grey Wardens. Being not necessary doesnt' mean that they aren't needed.

Modifié par hhh89, 15 juin 2013 - 08:46 .

[Fuggyt]

[quote]Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Problem one: The mages can do this whether they wish it or no, thanks to that abomination thing. In this state, any mage can cause devestation almost no mundanes are capable of. The vast majority of mundanes can't take out a city.[/quote]

This is the usual gross exaggeration of a mage's power in order to justify their suppression.  Although the codex on the subject observes that "abominations have been responsible for some of the worst cataclysms in history," it also points out that "thankfully, abominations are rare."  Certainly they must be more rare than apprentices failing the Harrowing.  So while they are certainly powerful, they are not numerous enough to provide an existential menace to Thedas and so their threat is clearly exaggerated for institutional purposes by Circle, Templars, and Chantry. 

You can argue that we see a lot more of them around Ferelden and Kirkwall than the codex suggests, and you'd be right.  We need a steady stream of goons to slaughter, after all.  But if you suggest the gameplay more accurately reflects the design of the world than the lore, you have to concede abominations aren't so tough at that.  They're mages, after all, and the pointy thingies go right through their widdle wobes.  You can't have it both ways--either the lore is right and they're powerful but not numerous or gameplay is right and they're numerous but not powerful.  Either way, not the threat they're cracked up to be.

[/quote]Problem two: Having apostate mages running around can make the powerful, beautiful, or charismatic more dangerous. Howe had apostate mages under his control, and he is shown to have used their abilities to his advantage. And how much worse could a bandit leader become if he hires apostates?[/quote]

So we agree.  It's not the magic per se, it's the mage.  It's not that they or Jowan were apostates who had magic.  It's that they employed the abilities they had in the service of evil. 

[/quote]Problem three: A mage can be much more dangerous than a simple crazy man. A single mage is a match for most non-mages in a fight, whereas if a simple mundane crazy man finds himself face to face with the guards, he's probably done with.[/quote]

Or, in other words, problem one reiterated.  The same points apply.  An individual mage is far and away a match for an individual mundane warrior.  But there just aren't enough of them to stand up against a far-flung military order ranged against them.  One mage + one warrior = one flaming corpse.  One mage + one platoon of templars/one angry mob = one head on the end of its own staff.

Modifié par Fuggyt, 15 juin 2013 - 09:05 .