158 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

[quote]Taleroth wrote...

[quote]DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

[quote]Taleroth wrote...
And I'm sure that with the Chantry disorganized, the only Templars who haven't been absorbed into the Inquisition so they can focus on recovering the veil are the ones that are completely insane.[/quote]
Wait. Wait. Wait. Where did it say that templars have been absorbed into the Inquisition?[/quote] Nowhere. But they have no place else to go. The Red Templars are the Templar order, now. Templars who abandon it are going to be deprived of lyrium and without support.[/quote]

Unless they go back to the Chantry. As far as we know, the Chantry still controls the lyrium trade. It would mean that those who do, however, with the current Divine, would have to grant far more concessions to mages and the Circles than the Red Templars would ever consider.

[quote][quote][quote]Taleroth wrote...
The ones that broke from the Accord are the ones who ended up going to seek the red lyrium. Any others are going to be like Vivienne, pro-circle.[/quote]
And pro-circle Templars wouldn't attack blood mages?[/quote] No, they wouldn't. Templars in the circle system don't just go attacking mages unprovoked. They arrest them to take to a mage prison designed to sort out abominations. In the current climate, they unlikely still have access to those prisons.

So they're not precisely going to go attacking the guy saving the world. They're not violent fanatics.
[/quote][/quote]

Or they may be trying to save their world, that is, a world that fits their ideals, and the Inquisitor may threaten that, and they may attack the Inquisitor because it's their way of life that has been destroyed, and it'll never be recovered if the Inquisitor succeeds.

Maybe.

[Xenomorphine]

I'm liking the ideas here, so far...

Summoning demonic entities was something which always should have been implemented. It seems like it should have followed a supernatural evolution path, in the same way as the RAnger specialisation let you summon varying levels of animal allies to assist in battle.

Blood magic, by virtue of its nature, should always have a 'Russian roulette' factor built into it, so... I'd say that the risk in doing this is that the summoned demonic ally always needs to also be dispatched by you. It'll get rid of your enemies, be weakened by them, but then turn on you and your party - as per the historical flashback cinematic during the Warden's Keep DLC.

So, you'd know you only summon one when you have a ridiculous number of enemies which need to be felled. You'd have to weigh up how much damage your summoned entity to dish out and absorb and make a calculated risk on when to summon it up, since you know it would have to be defeated after that battle.

Love the stuff about a blood mage being shunned by others in the actual story! Gives it meaning beyond merely being a combat specialisation!

And the stuff about mind-control, yes... Absolutely. Would adore that. Spectacular subterfuge options. Gives you a feeling of being a mediaeval Sith Lord! The compromise could be that, if you don't have enough will-power, people like guards at the door (if any are in the room) might notice something is up and raise the alarm, shaking yoru target out of the veritable trance you have put them in. On the other hand, if you do it right, you can get all kinds of added influence on your conversational target.

Not mere information. That should be a part of the coercion speech value. Actual influence. Being able to command them to do things or make them believe doing something is something they have suggested.

I remember 'Vampire The Masquarade - Bloodlines'. I nevr got around to playing a Malkavian, but am aware that it was the one class whose insanity and psychic intuition allowed them access to all kinds of unique dialogue options. If this game structures unique dialogue options along those lines for blood mages, it could make the class much more interesting to experience.

Modifié par Xenomorphine, 07 septembre 2013 - 09:28 .

[KainD]

Taleroth wrote...

Nowhere. But they have no place else to go. The Red Templars are the Templar order, now. Templars who abandon it are going to be deprived of lyrium and without support.

And deprived of lyrium, without support and with nowhere to go they should stay. And it should be left for the player to decide whether or not they are joining the inquisition, because I will not have them there. 
 

[Xenomorphine]

KainD wrote...

And deprived of lyrium, without support and with nowhere to go they should stay. And it should be left for the player to decide whether or not they are joining the inquisition, because I will not have them there.

Y'know, nothing quite says 'I hate you' like recruiting them for use as cannon fodder...

[dragonflight288]

I remember 'Vampire The Masquarade - Bloodlines'. I nevr got around to playing a Malkavian, but am aware that it was the one class whose insanity and psychic intuition allowed them access to all kinds of unique dialogue options. If this game structures unique dialogue options along those lines for blood mages, it could make the class much more interesting to experience.

Like arguing with stop signs or having a conversation with the news anchor? lol. Malkavianis so insanely fun.

[Karach_Blade]

I really hope they give us alternates aside from just the demon option to get blood magic as the lore even states that while receiving knowledge on such magic is rare enough outside Tevinter to warrant a demon teaching it, there are families whee its passed down, people discover it naturally or from books....

[Lluthren]

If people freak out about it, good. This makes me want to play a blood mage again.

[Eveangaline]

I'd love for any templars with you to leave. I mean..unless you use your blood magic to take over their minds.

[KiwiQuiche]

Eveangaline wrote...

I'd love for any templars with you to leave. I mean..unless you use your blood magic to take over their minds.

I'm down with that last option.

[-TC1989-]

Eveangaline wrote...

I'd love for any templars with you to leave. I mean..unless you use your blood magic to take over their minds.

Aside from the fact that a lot of Mage lovers would do it simply to rid the party of Templars, it would only make sense for them to leave anyway. I don't ever see a Blood mage, and Templar joining forces in any real situation, but I guess you never know.

[Hey]

yea, you should get called out on it at least

[Tremere]

Couldn't there be a Blood Mage who didn't consort with demons in order to learn his/her craft? By all accounts there's nothing that says you absolutely must barter with a demon to learn Blood Magic. That would completely defeat the purpose of acquiring a tome to learn it, as you could in Dragon Age Origins - Awakening.

Personally, I like the idea of an ethical Blood Mage, who neither falls to darkness nor consorts with demons, and loathes those Blood Mages who do. The Inquisitor would consider them weak "Diabolists" and unworthy of calling themselves Mages, because their abilities are a product of their weakness and hubris as opposed to their will. And for the record, this is how I role-played my Mage Hawke.

Modifié par GabrielXL, 14 septembre 2013 - 08:06 .

[Uccio]

Blood magic should not be labeled as "the evil". I don't want preset morality on my character and choises he makes. It should be like TW2, with pros and cons. You decide what is worth what.

[Lotion Soronarr]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Personally, if Bioware cared so much about story consistency then they should just drop the blood mage spec because their is no way they can deal with all the consequences of being a blood mage.

Well, it is POSSIBLE.
However, it requires so much work and extra content for jsut one specialzation, that I doubt they WILL pull it off in any satisfactory fashion.


See Templar and Blood mage specializations in DA2.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Taleroth wrote...
Only if they're going to make other companions hate you for choosing Spirit Healer or Champion with no way of allowing you to justify yourself.

If you want to have consequences, make them tradeoffs equal to the tradeoffs others have. Don't just single one out because you think it's super special.

No.
Not all things are equal, there is absolutely NO logic in making every choice have equal consequences.

[LobselVith8]

dragonflight288 wrote...

I remember 'Vampire The Masquarade - Bloodlines'. I nevr got around to playing a Malkavian, but am aware that it was the one class whose insanity and psychic intuition allowed them access to all kinds of unique dialogue options. If this game structures unique dialogue options along those lines for blood mages, it could make the class much more interesting to experience.

Like arguing with stop signs or having a conversation with the news anchor? lol. Malkavianis so insanely fun.

That Stop Sign made a powerful enemy that day. 

I think there should be realistic reactivity to being a blood mage, with Andrastians being wary of you and some companions having a serious issue with it. I'm hoping they allow for blood mages who aren't villains, like Merrill.

[Tremere]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Taleroth wrote...
Only if they're going to make other companions hate you for choosing Spirit Healer or Champion with no way of allowing you to justify yourself.

If you want to have consequences, make them tradeoffs equal to the tradeoffs others have. Don't just single one out because you think it's super special.

No.
Not all things are equal, there is absolutely NO logic in making every choice have equal consequences.

I agree with you in principle, but I also see nothing wrong with a character being scorned for being a self-righteous Templar or a "backstabbing" Rogue. It happens... I could see a Templar taking issue with the tactics of a Rogue Warrior or having no regard for an archer, etc... It could be something as simple as chiding or as heavy-handed as outright disdain. *shrugs* Still, if they're going to do that, then the player or NPC should likewise be equipped to respond. It's like hearing common folk squawking about Mages, while almost none of them know what it's like to be one. Likewise, hearing people making damning accusations about them because of what one did or was rumored to have done.

In regards to your assertion that there is "NO logic in making every choice have equal consequences", I'd say "Yes", but that's still a subjective argument. It all depends on who's doing the judging.

Modifié par GabrielXL, 14 septembre 2013 - 11:57 .

[mikeymoonshine]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Taleroth wrote...
Only if they're going to make other companions hate you for choosing Spirit Healer or Champion with no way of allowing you to justify yourself.

If you want to have consequences, make them tradeoffs equal to the tradeoffs others have. Don't just single one out because you think it's super special.

No.
Not all things are equal, there is absolutely NO logic in making every choice have equal consequences.

Hmm well, Spirit healers should also be misstrusted by templar characters as they are also in more danger of being possessed, The Templar specialisation should probably be more involved in the story too and I think some kind of lyrium potion mechanic would work. 

A mage character might take issue with that, especially one that was very anti templar. I would also think Reaver would be unpopular with some. 

[Taleroth]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Taleroth wrote...
Only if they're going to make other companions hate you for choosing Spirit Healer or Champion with no way of allowing you to justify yourself.

If you want to have consequences, make them tradeoffs equal to the tradeoffs others have. Don't just single one out because you think it's super special.

No.
Not all things are equal, there is absolutely NO logic in making every choice have equal consequences.

Choices that aren't equal are barely a choice at all. And if they're too unequal, then they shouldn't be offered. There's no logic to offering a choice that's worse than all the other choices.

Conner is a very weak choice because of this. Going to the circle should have also had repurcussions similar to the sacrifice of Isolde or the killing of Conner.

Modifié par Taleroth, 14 septembre 2013 - 01:29 .

[Qyla]

I'm really hyped up for it, I can't wait to see what dev do about it in this game =3

[Lotion Soronarr]

GabrielXL wrote...

I agree with you in principle, but I also see nothing wrong with a character being scorned for being a self-righteous Templar or a "backstabbing" Rogue. It happens... I could see a Templar taking issue with the tactics of a Rogue Warrior or having no regard for an archer, etc... It could be something as simple as chiding or as heavy-handed as outright disdain. *shrugs* Still, if they're going to do that, then the player or NPC should likewise be equipped to respond. It's like hearing common folk squawking about Mages, while almost none of them know what it's like to be one. Likewise, hearing people making damning accusations about them because of what one did or was rumored to have done.

Tempalrs aren't D&D paladins.
So while there are are possible frictions, they are nothing compared ot what a Blood Mage would face.

Heck ,they could even do the lyrium addiction for a templar justics in neither DA:O or DA2.
Blood Mages were completely ignored in DA2.
You really think they willp ull it off in DA:I?

Especially now that they have multiple races again - including a qunari no less - to deal with.

In regards to your assertion that there is "NO logic in making every choice have equal consequences", I'd say "Yes", but that's still a subjective argument. It all depends on who's doing the judging.

It's not.

Blood mages are pretty much mistrusted and feared by everyone.
A rouge isn't. A templar isn't. A warrior isn't. A champion isn't.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Taleroth wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No.
Not all things are equal, there is absolutely NO logic in making every choice have equal consequences.

Choices that aren't equal are barely a choice at all. And if they're too unequal, then they shouldn't be offered. There's no logic to offering a choice that's worse than all the other choices.

Conner is a very weak choice because of this. Going to the circle should have also had repurcussions similar to the sacrifice of Isolde or the killing of Conner.

Fake equality is no equality at all. It stinks.


How about we make takign a tank and taking a pistol equal?
After all, we can't have the players choosing the pistol feel gimped!

REALISTIC reprocussion. Period. I don't give a rats ass how "balanced" they are.
If balance is forced and fake it ruins immersion, gameplay and story segragation ruins it even further.

[mikeymoonshine]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

GabrielXL wrote...

I agree with you in principle, but I also see nothing wrong with a character being scorned for being a self-righteous Templar or a "backstabbing" Rogue. It happens... I could see a Templar taking issue with the tactics of a Rogue Warrior or having no regard for an archer, etc... It could be something as simple as chiding or as heavy-handed as outright disdain. *shrugs* Still, if they're going to do that, then the player or NPC should likewise be equipped to respond. It's like hearing common folk squawking about Mages, while almost none of them know what it's like to be one. Likewise, hearing people making damning accusations about them because of what one did or was rumored to have done.

Tempalrs aren't D&D paladins.
So while there are are possible frictions, they are nothing compared ot what a Blood Mage would face.

Heck ,they could even do the lyrium addiction for a templar justics in neither DA:O or DA2.
Blood Mages were completely ignored in DA2.
You really think they willp ull it off in DA:I?

Especially now that they have multiple races again - including a qunari no less - to deal with.

In regards to your assertion that there is "NO logic in making every choice have equal consequences", I'd say "Yes", but that's still a subjective argument. It all depends on who's doing the judging.

It's not.

Blood mages are pretty much mistrusted and feared by everyone.
A rouge isn't. A templar isn't. A warrior isn't. A champion isn't.

Allot of people in Thedas who are Mages, Have mages in their family, have known mages or are just on the side of mages fear and hate templars. 

Cullun points this out in DA2 more people are on the mages side than the templars in Kirkwall. Plus this could have gotten worse considering what happened to Meredith. 

Blood magic is feared and hated by allot of people in Thedas but not everyone there are many characters who fear other things more or just do not share the ideas of the Chantry. 

Now being a blood mage and fighting like a templar are not the same thing but I think learning Templar skills might make a few people disslike you a bit if they knew about it. 

[DarthLaxian]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Combat-wise, using blood magic spells could cause a demon enemy's aggro to go berserk, and they should target a blood mage more frequently than anyone else. Also, being a blood mage could cause the frequency of demon encounters while traveling to increase.

Story wise, companions should confront your character based on how they feel about blood magic.

confront - yes, please (it is logical - but i don't want close-minded zealot-companions who turn on you or leave no matter what you do or tell them (i mean: why should a companion hate you, if you say only use blood-magic in combat (oh: and on bad-guys), but otherwise are a "mother theresa"-type character that helps the poor, the weak, the defensless?...what i mean is: your companions should evaluate the PC by judging his/her actions, not her specialisations (at least not purely))

why should demons be after blood-mages? - it is false that blood-magic draws demons (unless you summon them or rip the veil!)...magic in general does (well not the act of casting, but having magic itself (being a mage) draws the demons to you - though they can only possess you, if you let them...and probably only by either going to the fade (by doing rituals like when helping Connor/Feynriel) or by sleeping (where your mind enters the fade)) so no, the danger of possession is not higher for blood-mages (unless they are fataly stupid and work with those)

greetings LAX
ps: reprecussions? - well, some is ok (but not purely negative - even more as most people can only recognize blood-magic, if done right in front of them and IMHO no blood-mage would be stupid enough, to show it off, if he doesn't have to (and then it is a live and death situation probably, meaning in the end either the mage is dead or his/her enemies are - meaning no one is able to tell anyone you are a blood-mage) - and if someone did, they would probably kill the witnesses (or "mind-lock" them - Avernus tells us in DA:O that he influenced the nobles in Ferelden not to tell the Tyrant-Kind about the Rebellion...he "nudged" them he said (meaning that he probably could have exerted even stronger influence, but Sophia Dryden didn't let him!))

[Tremere]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

GabrielXL wrote...

I agree with you in principle, but I also see nothing wrong with a character being scorned for being a self-righteous Templar or a "backstabbing" Rogue. It happens... I could see a Templar taking issue with the tactics of a Rogue Warrior or having no regard for an archer, etc... It could be something as simple as chiding or as heavy-handed as outright disdain. *shrugs* Still, if they're going to do that, then the player or NPC should likewise be equipped to respond. It's like hearing common folk squawking about Mages, while almost none of them know what it's like to be one. Likewise, hearing people making damning accusations about them because of what one did or was rumored to have done.

Tempalrs aren't D&D paladins.
So while there are are possible frictions, they are nothing compared ot what a Blood Mage would face.

Heck ,they could even do the lyrium addiction for a templar justics in neither DA:O or DA2.
Blood Mages were completely ignored in DA2.
You really think they willp ull it off in DA:I?

Especially now that they have multiple races again - including a qunari no less - to deal with.

In regards to your assertion that there is "NO logic in making every choice have equal consequences", I'd say "Yes", but that's still a subjective argument. It all depends on who's doing the judging.

It's not.

Blood mages are pretty much mistrusted and feared by everyone.
A rouge isn't. A templar isn't. A warrior isn't. A champion isn't.

In truth, I hope they do show in DA:I that Templars aren't the righteous do-gooders they would have people believe they are. Clearly there are some bad elements within their ranks who should be exposed for what they are. (This was expressed in Dawn of the Seeker) What's more, being Lyrium-addicted has to have some kind of dubious effect on them that hasn't been explored. Look at what it did to that jackass on the dock outside of the Circle Tower in Dragon Age Origins and to Meredith in DA2.

Yes, Blood Mages are generally mistrusted by everyone, but the basis for that is found in Chantry dogma and the past actions of the Tevinter Magisters who (if you believe Chantry doctrine) set the stage for Mage persecution. Still, that doesn't mean that every Mage, regardless of discipline, should be instinctively persecuted. Irony is that the same doctrine explicitly states that "Magic is to serve man, not to rule over him." What did the Andraste really mean by that? Will we get any clarification? I hope so. I know that we on the outside have our opinions, but I'm curious to see how it plays out in the game.