516 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...
Despite your intention, all this does is prove that people at BioWare disagree on a piece of lore. Neither Kirby nor Gaider's word should be taken as Gospel since both of them have bosses that ultimately dictate the "truth" in Dragon Age. If something in-game contradicts the idea that elves are living longer lives the longer they stay away from humans, they'll show it. As it stands, it's an unverifiable "fact" that cannot be proven, no disproven.

Look, I'm perfectly happy to say that we have two different authorities and this means that we can't draw any conclusion about how old the elves are. It's the other side of the fence you have to take it up with. 

[Hazegurl]

Chari wrote...

I'm not here to start another Templars vs Mages war, I see boths sides and their reasons. My main issue here is the way of storytelling.
It seems to me that ever since DA2 the Bioware have forgotten how to draw conflicts in grey shades. Mind you, they were never really good at it but in ME they did manage to make conflicts such as the Krogan Rebellions, Geth vs Quarians and even the Reapers (eh, to some extent) more or less difficult. In DA:O there were the dwarf king choosing part, the elves vs werewolves, demons vs spirits etc.
But ever since DA2 I've kind of given up on any well-written conflict in DA universe. The Asunder only made it worse.

I agree 100% DA2 presented the most extreme povs possible and you had to sort of find your own reasons to side with each of them....unless you believe each of their extreme arguments.  There were times when the mages made sense and there were times when the Templars made sense but overall it was just a bucket of crazy all around.  i hope we do get more sensible storytelling this time around, one side doesn't have to be seen as a great force of good or evil just to make a point. Just allow the player to decide, if we have to. i also would love the option to not just choose one side, if it comes with consequences then so be it.

[Steelcan]

Morocco Mole wrote...

If Bioware's own writers cannot keep up with their own lore. Then we must decide for ourselves and I have decided that this argument is dumb.

[OLDIRTYBARON]

In Exile wrote...

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...
Despite your intention, all this does is prove that people at BioWare disagree on a piece of lore. Neither Kirby nor Gaider's word should be taken as Gospel since both of them have bosses that ultimately dictate the "truth" in Dragon Age. If something in-game contradicts the idea that elves are living longer lives the longer they stay away from humans, they'll show it. As it stands, it's an unverifiable "fact" that cannot be proven, no disproven.

Look, I'm perfectly happy to say that we have two different authorities and this means that we can't draw any conclusion about how old the elves are. It's the other side of the fence you have to take it up with. 

Oh I know, that post sounded more hostile than I intended. I meant it more on the general argument and not singling you out specifically.

I really wish BSN had a multi-quote feature.

[LobselVith8]

AresKeith wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

By keeping the mages living in servitude to the Chantry? I don't see how that means Divine Justina wants to help mages.

The same way some people believe in a reformed Circle 

I don't see that happening under the Chantry of Andraste, much less under Divine Justina. To each his own, I suppose.

[In Exile]

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...
Oh I know, that post sounded more hostile than I intended. I meant it more on the general argument and not singling you out specifically.

I really wish BSN had a multi-quote feature.

I didn't mean to sound defensive either. It was a fair comment to make and you're totally right on the merits. 

[Master Warder Z_]

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

In Exile wrote...

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...
Despite your intention, all this does is prove that people at BioWare disagree on a piece of lore. Neither Kirby nor Gaider's word should be taken as Gospel since both of them have bosses that ultimately dictate the "truth" in Dragon Age. If something in-game contradicts the idea that elves are living longer lives the longer they stay away from humans, they'll show it. As it stands, it's an unverifiable "fact" that cannot be proven, no disproven.

Look, I'm perfectly happy to say that we have two different authorities and this means that we can't draw any conclusion about how old the elves are. It's the other side of the fence you have to take it up with. 

Oh I know, that post sounded more hostile than I intended. I meant it more on the general argument and not singling you out specifically.

I really wish BSN had a multi-quote feature.

Oh Da totally agree with you on the Multiquote feature.

[-TC1989-]

Hazegurl wrote...

Chari wrote...

I'm not here to start another Templars vs Mages war, I see boths sides and their reasons. My main issue here is the way of storytelling.
It seems to me that ever since DA2 the Bioware have forgotten how to draw conflicts in grey shades. Mind you, they were never really good at it but in ME they did manage to make conflicts such as the Krogan Rebellions, Geth vs Quarians and even the Reapers (eh, to some extent) more or less difficult. In DA:O there were the dwarf king choosing part, the elves vs werewolves, demons vs spirits etc.
But ever since DA2 I've kind of given up on any well-written conflict in DA universe. The Asunder only made it worse.

I agree 100% DA2 presented the most extreme povs possible and you had to sort of find your own reasons to side with each of them....unless you believe each of their extreme arguments.  There were times when the mages made sense and there were times when the Templars made sense but overall it was just a bucket of crazy all around.  i hope we do get more sensible storytelling this time around, one side doesn't have to be seen as a great force of good or evil just to make a point. Just allow the player to decide, if we have to. i also would love the option to not just choose one side, if it comes with consequences then so be it.

I was never a fan of the whole extreme end on both ends in DA 2, it felt forced. It almost felt like a catering to both sides, whichever side the player chose. It's almost like if you ran into a crazy Templar, the game basically was hinting that you were going to run into a crazy mage soon, a little too predictable at times. I felt like this is one area that Origins did much better, it simply felt more natural to me. Now of course I understand too that there are crazy members on either side, and that's fine. It just seemed like it was trying to balance it too evenly to the player. In the end I did, and will always edge my support to the Templars (within reason of course), but it was also annoying as well.

[OLDIRTYBARON]

People say that DA2 tended to represent extremes, and while this is true to a degree, I find the reasoning behind it more compelling than people give the game credit for.

After all, it's one thing entirely to say "mages should be free, they can police themselves" in a social setting free of any danger. It's entirely another to actually witness the level of destruction and chaos just one blood mage can cause, and still claim the same. If anything, I think DA2's triumph is that it successfully managed to take a serious issue (well, in the game world) and show you just how bad things can get, and challenge you to defend your beliefs.

A lot of DA2 is predicated on challenging the player morally, I think.

[Master Warder Z_]

-TC1989- wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

Chari wrote...

I'm not here to start another Templars vs Mages war, I see boths sides and their reasons. My main issue here is the way of storytelling.
It seems to me that ever since DA2 the Bioware have forgotten how to draw conflicts in grey shades. Mind you, they were never really good at it but in ME they did manage to make conflicts such as the Krogan Rebellions, Geth vs Quarians and even the Reapers (eh, to some extent) more or less difficult. In DA:O there were the dwarf king choosing part, the elves vs werewolves, demons vs spirits etc.
But ever since DA2 I've kind of given up on any well-written conflict in DA universe. The Asunder only made it worse.

I agree 100% DA2 presented the most extreme povs possible and you had to sort of find your own reasons to side with each of them....unless you believe each of their extreme arguments.  There were times when the mages made sense and there were times when the Templars made sense but overall it was just a bucket of crazy all around.  i hope we do get more sensible storytelling this time around, one side doesn't have to be seen as a great force of good or evil just to make a point. Just allow the player to decide, if we have to. i also would love the option to not just choose one side, if it comes with consequences then so be it.

I was never a fan of the whole extreme end on both ends in DA 2, it felt forced. It almost felt like a catering to both sides, whichever side the player chose. It's almost like if you ran into a crazy Templar, the game basically was hinting that you were going to run into a crazy mage soon, a little too predictable at times. I felt like this is one area that Origins did much better, it simply felt more natural to me. Now of course I understand too that there are crazy members on either side, and that's fine. It just seemed like it was trying to balance it too evenly to the player. In the end I did, and will always edge my support to the Templars (within reason of course), but it was also annoying as well.

Ah so you are going to be supporting the Seekers then hrm?

Its nice to see another Lambert supporter.

[cjones91]

Master Warder Z wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

Chari wrote...

I'm not here to start another Templars vs Mages war, I see boths sides and their reasons. My main issue here is the way of storytelling.
It seems to me that ever since DA2 the Bioware have forgotten how to draw conflicts in grey shades. Mind you, they were never really good at it but in ME they did manage to make conflicts such as the Krogan Rebellions, Geth vs Quarians and even the Reapers (eh, to some extent) more or less difficult. In DA:O there were the dwarf king choosing part, the elves vs werewolves, demons vs spirits etc.
But ever since DA2 I've kind of given up on any well-written conflict in DA universe. The Asunder only made it worse.

I agree 100% DA2 presented the most extreme povs possible and you had to sort of find your own reasons to side with each of them....unless you believe each of their extreme arguments.  There were times when the mages made sense and there were times when the Templars made sense but overall it was just a bucket of crazy all around.  i hope we do get more sensible storytelling this time around, one side doesn't have to be seen as a great force of good or evil just to make a point. Just allow the player to decide, if we have to. i also would love the option to not just choose one side, if it comes with consequences then so be it.

I was never a fan of the whole extreme end on both ends in DA 2, it felt forced. It almost felt like a catering to both sides, whichever side the player chose. It's almost like if you ran into a crazy Templar, the game basically was hinting that you were going to run into a crazy mage soon, a little too predictable at times. I felt like this is one area that Origins did much better, it simply felt more natural to me. Now of course I understand too that there are crazy members on either side, and that's fine. It just seemed like it was trying to balance it too evenly to the player. In the end I did, and will always edge my support to the Templars (within reason of course), but it was also annoying as well.

Ah so you are going to be supporting the Seekers then hrm?

Its nice to see another Lambert supporter.

Lambert is a a*s.

[OLDIRTYBARON]

cjones91 wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

Chari wrote...

I'm not here to start another Templars vs Mages war, I see boths sides and their reasons. My main issue here is the way of storytelling.
It seems to me that ever since DA2 the Bioware have forgotten how to draw conflicts in grey shades. Mind you, they were never really good at it but in ME they did manage to make conflicts such as the Krogan Rebellions, Geth vs Quarians and even the Reapers (eh, to some extent) more or less difficult. In DA:O there were the dwarf king choosing part, the elves vs werewolves, demons vs spirits etc.
But ever since DA2 I've kind of given up on any well-written conflict in DA universe. The Asunder only made it worse.

I agree 100% DA2 presented the most extreme povs possible and you had to sort of find your own reasons to side with each of them....unless you believe each of their extreme arguments.  There were times when the mages made sense and there were times when the Templars made sense but overall it was just a bucket of crazy all around.  i hope we do get more sensible storytelling this time around, one side doesn't have to be seen as a great force of good or evil just to make a point. Just allow the player to decide, if we have to. i also would love the option to not just choose one side, if it comes with consequences then so be it.

I was never a fan of the whole extreme end on both ends in DA 2, it felt forced. It almost felt like a catering to both sides, whichever side the player chose. It's almost like if you ran into a crazy Templar, the game basically was hinting that you were going to run into a crazy mage soon, a little too predictable at times. I felt like this is one area that Origins did much better, it simply felt more natural to me. Now of course I understand too that there are crazy members on either side, and that's fine. It just seemed like it was trying to balance it too evenly to the player. In the end I did, and will always edge my support to the Templars (within reason of course), but it was also annoying as well.

Ah so you are going to be supporting the Seekers then hrm?

Its nice to see another Lambert supporter.

Lambert is a a*s.

What an insightful post. We are all blessed by the wisdoms you have found within your heart to bestow upon the unenlightened.

Truly, thank you.

[-TC1989-]

Master Warder Z wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

Chari wrote...

I'm not here to start another Templars vs Mages war, I see boths sides and their reasons. My main issue here is the way of storytelling.
It seems to me that ever since DA2 the Bioware have forgotten how to draw conflicts in grey shades. Mind you, they were never really good at it but in ME they did manage to make conflicts such as the Krogan Rebellions, Geth vs Quarians and even the Reapers (eh, to some extent) more or less difficult. In DA:O there were the dwarf king choosing part, the elves vs werewolves, demons vs spirits etc.
But ever since DA2 I've kind of given up on any well-written conflict in DA universe. The Asunder only made it worse.

I agree 100% DA2 presented the most extreme povs possible and you had to sort of find your own reasons to side with each of them....unless you believe each of their extreme arguments.  There were times when the mages made sense and there were times when the Templars made sense but overall it was just a bucket of crazy all around.  i hope we do get more sensible storytelling this time around, one side doesn't have to be seen as a great force of good or evil just to make a point. Just allow the player to decide, if we have to. i also would love the option to not just choose one side, if it comes with consequences then so be it.

I was never a fan of the whole extreme end on both ends in DA 2, it felt forced. It almost felt like a catering to both sides, whichever side the player chose. It's almost like if you ran into a crazy Templar, the game basically was hinting that you were going to run into a crazy mage soon, a little too predictable at times. I felt like this is one area that Origins did much better, it simply felt more natural to me. Now of course I understand too that there are crazy members on either side, and that's fine. It just seemed like it was trying to balance it too evenly to the player. In the end I did, and will always edge my support to the Templars (within reason of course), but it was also annoying as well.

Ah so you are going to be supporting the Seekers then hrm?

Its nice to see another Lambert supporter.

I wouldn't say I am a full fledged Pro-Temp, but I do tend to agree with their way of thinking more often than not. If it comes down to a "You Must Choose a Side" situation, then yes I am with the Templars. But honestly, I try to make a point to keep my character's nose out of it, because honestly I'm not too huge on the whole Mage vs Templars thing to begin with.

[cjones91]

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

Chari wrote...

I'm not here to start another Templars vs Mages war, I see boths sides and their reasons. My main issue here is the way of storytelling.
It seems to me that ever since DA2 the Bioware have forgotten how to draw conflicts in grey shades. Mind you, they were never really good at it but in ME they did manage to make conflicts such as the Krogan Rebellions, Geth vs Quarians and even the Reapers (eh, to some extent) more or less difficult. In DA:O there were the dwarf king choosing part, the elves vs werewolves, demons vs spirits etc.
But ever since DA2 I've kind of given up on any well-written conflict in DA universe. The Asunder only made it worse.

I agree 100% DA2 presented the most extreme povs possible and you had to sort of find your own reasons to side with each of them....unless you believe each of their extreme arguments.  There were times when the mages made sense and there were times when the Templars made sense but overall it was just a bucket of crazy all around.  i hope we do get more sensible storytelling this time around, one side doesn't have to be seen as a great force of good or evil just to make a point. Just allow the player to decide, if we have to. i also would love the option to not just choose one side, if it comes with consequences then so be it.

I was never a fan of the whole extreme end on both ends in DA 2, it felt forced. It almost felt like a catering to both sides, whichever side the player chose. It's almost like if you ran into a crazy Templar, the game basically was hinting that you were going to run into a crazy mage soon, a little too predictable at times. I felt like this is one area that Origins did much better, it simply felt more natural to me. Now of course I understand too that there are crazy members on either side, and that's fine. It just seemed like it was trying to balance it too evenly to the player. In the end I did, and will always edge my support to the Templars (within reason of course), but it was also annoying as well.

Ah so you are going to be supporting the Seekers then hrm?

Its nice to see another Lambert supporter.

Lambert is a a*s.

What an insightful post. We are all blessed by the wisdoms you have found within your heart to bestow upon the unenlightened.

Truly, thank you.

Sorry,I meant to add he was a traitor and a as*.Is that better?

Modifié par cjones91, 12 septembre 2013 - 04:45 .

[LobselVith8]

cjones91 wrote...

Lambert is a a*s.

Lambert could be dead (via Cole). I'm sure I'll have to deal with his templars and Seekers either way - as antagonists, most likely.

[cjones91]

LobselVith8 wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Lambert is a a*s.

Lambert could be dead (via Cole). I'm sure I'll have to deal with his templars and Seekers either way - as antagonists, most likely.

I hope he's still alive so that I could have my elven mage inquisitor kill him and use his helmet as decoration for her chambers.

[Ryzaki]

AresKeith wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Funny, he didn't become a templar for me. He was always protective of his sister and returned to Kirkwall to protect her and even got upset when she decided to help the templars.

Don't be silly, anyone who isn't a mage is a Anders hater and anti-mage 

Warden Carver is the best though

He's still "ehhh" on mages too

[Lotion Soronarr]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Oh, come on, that is just Xilizhra's shtick.

Edit: Eventually posters who continually post in the forum wars end up being a character in themselves. I doubt they would actually be up for slaughtering a bunch of people, but their forum identity would. Get Xilizhra and Lotion Soronar in the same thread discussing mages and Templars, it is just magical. Just an assumption on my part, maybe people on the BSN are crazy people irl.

When's the last time you seen me reply to Xilizhra?
I gave up on that a long time ago.

[wolfhowwl]

Morocco Mole wrote...

The only good mage is a dead mage my friends.

What a waste.

Make them tranquil and they can still contribute to society.

[Lotion Soronarr]

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

Oh, so Orsino didn't want to face the hangman's noose and that made him noble, did it? He provoked a lot of what happened in Kirkwall by his willful disregard for the Chantry's laws and their oversight. He reveled in disobeying the Knight-Commander and practically thumbed his nose at her every chance he got. Then there's the whole "Orsino knew about Quentin's experiments and encouraged them" part, or do we sweep that under the rug because it doesn't fit the "poor mages" motif?

Orsino should have cooperated with Meredith. Irving would have, and I dare so any other First Enchanter would have. Orsino didn't want the Templars searching the Gallows because he knew they'd find something -- most likely his links to Quentin and God knows what other dark work -- and he'd probably face death for it. Orsino was a coward and he didn't want to face the consequences of his actions. He doomed his circle by refusing to acknowledge Templar authority and did nothing to stifle the growing unrest among circle mages. There is no excuse for what Orsino did. None.

People want to paint Meredith as a blood thirsty tyrant, but she wasn't. She wasn't paranoid in her suspicions of a plot against her, we found the plotters and dealt with them. She wasn't paranoid over the rampant blood magic in Kirkwall, we dealt with them every second wave of enemies. She wasn't paranoid because she suspected Orsino was hiding something, because he was. Meredith was right the entire time. When she starts to lose it is when she questions Hawke's loyalty, at which point even Cullen steps in and says "simmer down, sir."

Now as far as the Rite of Annulment goes, it was deserved. All the rampant blood magic, all the blood mages preying on the citizens of Kirkwall, all the demons running amock, and on top of all that a mage blows up the Chantry killing hundreds of innocent civilians. There was no way the people of Kirkwall weren't going to demand blood. Meredith invoked the Rite to deal with the problem before a war between Kirkwall and the Gallows erupted. Her duty was to protect the citizens of Kirkwall from hostile magic and she did her duty. Also notice that even during the Rite of Annulment, Hawke, Cullen, and Meredith (admittedly begrudgingly) agree to spare all mages who surrender to the Templar's authority. Not every mage dies in DA2 on the Templar path. In fact, more mages live after the Rite than from siding with the mages. Why? Because they were given the chance to surrender and Orsino had less corpses to turn into a bloody Harvester.

I can understand why people dislike Meredith. I even understand how people succumb to the romantic interpretation of poor mages who are so oppressed, so wronged, locked away in their towers in a gilded cage. But the wilfully ignoring facts serves no one.

Quoted For Truth

Orsino this Orsino that. When will it be Meredith for once? Meredith
isn't exactly the type of person that you can just have a friendly
business type of relationship with, especially when you're a mage.
Meredith clearly hates mages and she made it nice and clear. Meredith is
full of hatred that I don't think she even has a friend that she can
have a social discussion with.

Quoted For Wrong.

Meredith doesn't hate mages. It should be obvious to anyone who paid attention.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 12 septembre 2013 - 08:04 .

[LobselVith8]

Morocco Mole wrote...

You only get sympathetic Meredith dialog if you are staunchly pro-templar. So it shouldn't be a surprise that most pro-magers don't know it exists

For some of us, her backstory and her occassional moments of humanity doesn't excuse her monstrous behavior.

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

You only get sympathetic Meredith dialog if you are staunchly pro-templar. So it shouldn't be a surprise that most pro-magers don't know it exists

For some of us, her backstory and her occassional moments of humanity doesn't excuse her monstrous behavior.

Morocco's and Lotion's were talking about the assumlption that Meredith hates mages. Regardless if you think that she was a monstrous tyrant or not, she didn't hate mages.