935 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I see Grace as a one-dimensional caricature who made little sense in the narrative with a pro-mage Hawke, and see her actions as a result of the developers railroading the plot into the same outcome, since Grace kills Thrask and tries to murder the Champion whether Hawke decided to help her escape from the templars, or turn her over to the Circle. To have Grace desire revenge against the man who helped her is something that doesn't make sense to me.

You are holding up Grace to a standard that she never gave evidence she belongued to. Some people manipulate others into doing what they want and that is it. There is absolutely no reason to believe Grace is not one of these people; that she didn't just manipulate Thrask into protecting her and, that as soon as he is in the way of her getting something, she will have any qualms about killing him.
Plus. given that she turns into an Abomination, she obviously has had demons whispering into her ear for some time.

Grace being manipulative is one thing; having the character explicitly blame Hawke in the scenario where he helped her because the developers wanted to provide us with the exact same scenario and outcome, no matter what the player previously chose to do, is another issue entirely.

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

What the hell are you even talking about here? Honestly, you're welcome to have an actual discussion with me for a change, but you really need to quit with this crap. How does me having an issue with Grace wanting revenge against the man who helped her mean that I think mages are "immune to the failings of the lesser mortals"? That doesn't even remotely make the slightest bit of sense.

You have been harping about this and Decimus for years; how their actions make no sense; how this is a failing by the writers when it can be so easily explained by faults within their personalities. Given your status as a pro-mage, you're giving off the impression of being unable to deal with this issue because you can't accept the possibility that any mage would ever attack someone who helped her. 

Having already pointed out the flaws or malevolence of individual mages at different times (as well as my interest in a Dalish protagonist taking down the Magister Corpyheus, who I certainly make no excuses for), I'm not sure how you can seriously make that claim. Corypheus was freed, and I never claimed that it didn't make sense for him to attack Hawke and the others, despite being freed from his prison. Frankly, I could just as easily say your pro-templar viewpoint is clouding your perception of me.

As for Decimus and Grace, I found them to be flat; no depth. Upon seeing Hawke and his moiety crew, Decimus exclaims that the 'templars' have come for them, and even Grace acknowledges that they aren't templars. I didn't think it made sense then (especially with Merrill among his company), and I don't now.

There are pro-templar players who felt the same way about the depiction of templars in Dragon Age II, and I've often agreed that both factions tended to come across as caricatures. I've said, time and again, that I think that both sides should have been fleshed out, and that neither Meredith nor Orsino needed to become a monster or an over-the-top villain; that either character could have become an antagonist to the main character without turning into an out-and-out villain.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
As for Decimus and Grace, I found them to be flat; no depth. Upon seeing Hawke and his moiety crew, Decimus exclaims that the 'templars' have come for them, and even Grace acknowledges that they aren't templars. I didn't think it made sense then (especially with Merrill among his company), and I don't now.

I pointed this out for you repeatedly - Decimus acknowledges and dismisses her concern. "I care not what shield they carry" or whatever his line was. He doesn't care. 

Decimus is no more flat than Alrik, which is to say an insane and loathsome person with absolutely no reason for the player to not gut either on the spot. 

[wolfhowwl]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
As for Decimus and Grace, I found them to be flat; no depth. Upon seeing Hawke and his moiety crew, Decimus exclaims that the 'templars' have come for them, and even Grace acknowledges that they aren't templars. I didn't think it made sense then (especially with Merrill among his company), and I don't now.

I pointed this out for you repeatedly - Decimus acknowledges and dismisses her concern. "I care not what shield they carry" or whatever his line was. He doesn't care. 

Decimus is no more flat than Alrik, which is to say an insane and loathsome person with absolutely no reason for the player to not gut either on the spot. 

...and the game would have been better if neither of them were in it.

[blackflamerose]

In Exile wrote...

iakus wrote...
It's funny how the full context of his statement is often lost:

 "True, not every mage gives into temptation.  But none are ever free of it.  At any time, any mage can become a monster, from the lowest apprentice to the most seasoned enchanters. Mages cannot be treated like people.  They are not like you and me."

If that's the actual like, it is way worse that you are acting like it is. He outright says that mages can't be treated like people! The "you and me" bit is a reference to Cullen and Hawke who - in his estimation - are people. 

::sighs:: Yeah, that's when the Templar cause lost me. In fact, it's because mages could theoretically become possessed at any time that they need to be treated like people. As of right now, the general attitude for most tends to be Then Let Me Be Evil (On TvTropes, just be careful not to fall victim to the time suck!). Keep telling people that they're monsters and responsible for all the evil in the world, and you're surprised that some turn to blood magic? Or that the leading cause of death in the Circle is suicide? <_<

::shrugs:: If mages could hold onto the fact that they are more than just demon beacons or evil incarnate, that they are in fact people with worth, that might keep people from turning to blood magic or demons. I just can't see that happening in the Circle system.

[MisterJB]

cjones91 wrote...
You said that he keeps the mages under control which would include making sure they are safe.Alrik did none of these things infact he was like a corrupt prison guard who forces female prisoners to have sex with him except Alrik violates the female mages both mentally and physically.

No, it really doesn't. Keeping something under control could just as easily mean tossing the something into a cage and never feeding it. In fact, in certain areas of the world, population control often involves marching into people's home and shooting them.

Yes, what Alrik did was awful. No one is arguing that. What I am saying is that, as a non-mage in Thedas; and thus, not part of the group being molested by Alrik; I'd feel safer with him in the Circle than Thrask who can't tell his second in command is an Abomination, thinks putting demons into corpses is A-ok and actively helps Abominations and Blood Mages escape from the Circle to where they can hurt non-mages such as myself and my family.

[In Exile]

wolfhowwl wrote...

...and the game would have been better if neither of them were in it.

Absolutely. It would, at least, have made everything less black-and-white. 

[In Exile]

MisterJB wrote...
Yes, what Alrik did was awful. No one is arguing that. What I am saying is that, as a non-mage in Thedas; and thus, not part of the group being molested by Alrik; I'd feel safer with him in the Circle than Thrask who can't tell his second in command is an Abomination, thinks putting demons into corpses is A-ok and actively helps Abominations and Blood Mages escape from the Circle to where they can hurt non-mages such as myself and my family.

I don't feel safe with prison guards who are monstrous rapists. Since Thrask Alrik (whoops) can't actually get away with raping and turning tranquil every mage in the Circle, what does do is create such a vile culture or torture and abuse that mages are pushed to rebellion, and then when the streets are flooded by dangerous and unhigned blood mages brought to that point in part by his abuse, I suffer.

The idea that you're safer with abusive prison guards is on its face unacceptable. 

Modifié par In Exile, 21 septembre 2013 - 08:44 .

[LobselVith8]

Sir JK wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

While the Right of Annulment is supposed to focus on members of the Circle of Magi, the templars still have the legal authority to go after mages outside the Circle, as we know when Merrill explains why the Dalish clans are nomadic, and why the elven mages are careful about using magic in public where templars might see them. Even if Hawke isn't an apostate, the Champion is still responsible for killing templars by opposing the Right of Annulment and actively killing members of the Order. It's not as though the player is even given a chance to surrender; Cullen simply decides that trying to kill Hawke is crossing a line, which comes across as strange when Meredith has condemned hundreds to death for the actions of one single man who isn't a member of the Circle of Kirkwall (and Cullen was present when Orsino offered to stand down).

Here's a question Lobsel: Why ask a question when you clearly have already decided upon the answer?

I gave you my answer. While you raise a few good points, I'd say that the reason he draws the line here is as I said that he's simply feels he cannot excuse her behaviour any longer. He could explain away her usurping secular power. He could explain away Thrasks rebellion. He could even explain away the Rite of Annulment... and probably even attacking Hawk at the end... what he cannot accept is all those put together however. It's simply too much.
It's my analysis of it anyways... feel free to disagree. But I find it helps make the entire scene work.

I suppose we will simply have to agree to disagree about Cullen.

Sir JK wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Hawke didn't stand down and capitulate to Meredith's authority like The Warden can with Ser Cauthrien.

No, but there was a lull in the fighting and Hawke was not charging. I know I know... it's not much.. maybe he simply seized the opportunity? Or that he had planned it earlier but couldn't muster the courage? Or he's just plain had enough then and there, for no real reason except his conciousness screaming that he should have done so much earlier?
Or maybe it's that show don't tell thing that DA2 didn't always succeed at...

I certainly don't think it succeeded. I wish one of the developers could explain what they were aiming at with Cullen defecting from Meredith's side because of Hawke being threatened, rather than the annulment of everyone in the Circle of Kirkwall over Anders' actions.

Sir JK wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If Hawke sided with Meredith, then I agree. If Hawke didn't, then I see it as a problem. When the straw is the Champion of Kirkwall and not the act of condemning an entire population of people to death for the actions of one single man (who she can easily arrest since he's standing right in front of her) simply because the people of Kirkwall "will demand blood", then I take issue with it.

Because in Cullen's mind Meredith's reasoning was legal? He does not know Anders was behind it. Meredith does not tell him. He fully expects the circle to lie about their guilt (I mean... who wouldn't? "Yes mr templar sir, we absolutely harbour blood mages and you're completely in the right to annull this circle. Please apply your blade of mercy right here" ). But when -she- breaks Chantry law... that finally opens his eyes.

And yes... there are templars who would not bat an eyelash at killing Hawke then and there. No matter what the law may say. Apparently, Cullen's not one of them. Something we see clear signs of if you do side the with the templars... despite his rethoric. 

Meredith never contests Orsino's claim that she is going to annul the Circle for something they didn't do (and he's standing right behind her during the exchange in the Gallows); she says it's an issue of appeasing a hypothetical mob again: "The grand cleric is dead, killed by a mage. The people will demand retribution, and I will give it to them."

[Gwydden]

In Exile wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
Yes, what Alrik did was awful. No one is arguing that. What I am saying is that, as a non-mage in Thedas; and thus, not part of the group being molested by Alrik; I'd feel safer with him in the Circle than Thrask who can't tell his second in command is an Abomination, thinks putting demons into corpses is A-ok and actively helps Abominations and Blood Mages escape from the Circle to where they can hurt non-mages such as myself and my family.

I don't feel safe with prison guards who are monstrous rapists. Since Thrask can't actually get away with raping and turning tranquil every mage in the Circle, what does do is create such a vile culture or torture and abuse that mages are pushed to rebellion, and then when the streets are flooded by dangerous and unhigned blood mages brought to that point in part by his abuse, I suffer.

The idea that you're safer with abusive prison guards is on its face unacceptable. 

It's certainly safer than an inept prison guard who lets his charges, potentially murderers and madmen, escape.

[blackflamerose]

In Exile wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
Yes, what Alrik did was awful. No one is arguing that. What I am saying is that, as a non-mage in Thedas; and thus, not part of the group being molested by Alrik; I'd feel safer with him in the Circle than Thrask who can't tell his second in command is an Abomination, thinks putting demons into corpses is A-ok and actively helps Abominations and Blood Mages escape from the Circle to where they can hurt non-mages such as myself and my family.

I don't feel safe with prison guards who are monstrous rapists. Since Thrask can't actually get away with raping and turning tranquil every mage in the Circle, what does do is create such a vile culture or torture and abuse that mages are pushed to rebellion, and then when the streets are flooded by dangerous and unhigned blood mages brought to that point in part by his abuse, I suffer.

The idea that you're safer with abusive prison guards is on its face unacceptable. 

Er, Alrik was the rapist, not Thrask. And yeah, I agree that something's rotten in the state of Denmark when the mundane population feels safer with abusive prison guards. The Chantry has much to answer for once my Inquisition begins.

[In Exile]

Gwydden wrote...
It's certainly safer than an inept prison guard who lets his charges, potentially murderers and madmen, escape.

It's safer to drive those potential charges insane and make them hate all mundanes first before failing to keep them from escaping? Because his raping didn't do very much to stop people like Tahrone. 

blackflamerose wrote...
Er, Alrik was the rapist, not Thrask. And yeah, I agree that something's rotten in the state of Denmark when the mundane population feels safer with abusive prison guards. The Chantry has much to answer for once my Inquisition begins.

Woops. Fixed that. 

[blackflamerose]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

While the Right of Annulment is supposed to focus on members of the Circle of Magi, the templars still have the legal authority to go after mages outside the Circle, as we know when Merrill explains why the Dalish clans are nomadic, and why the elven mages are careful about using magic in public where templars might see them. Even if Hawke isn't an apostate, the Champion is still responsible for killing templars by opposing the Right of Annulment and actively killing members of the Order. It's not as though the player is even given a chance to surrender; Cullen simply decides that trying to kill Hawke is crossing a line, which comes across as strange when Meredith has condemned hundreds to death for the actions of one single man who isn't a member of the Circle of Kirkwall (and Cullen was present when Orsino offered to stand down).

Here's a question Lobsel: Why ask a question when you clearly have already decided upon the answer?

I gave you my answer. While you raise a few good points, I'd say that the reason he draws the line here is as I said that he's simply feels he cannot excuse her behaviour any longer. He could explain away her usurping secular power. He could explain away Thrasks rebellion. He could even explain away the Rite of Annulment... and probably even attacking Hawk at the end... what he cannot accept is all those put together however. It's simply too much.
It's my analysis of it anyways... feel free to disagree. But I find it helps make the entire scene work.

I suppose we will simply have to agree to disagree about Cullen.

Sir JK wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Hawke didn't stand down and capitulate to Meredith's authority like The Warden can with Ser Cauthrien.

No, but there was a lull in the fighting and Hawke was not charging. I know I know... it's not much.. maybe he simply seized the opportunity? Or that he had planned it earlier but couldn't muster the courage? Or he's just plain had enough then and there, for no real reason except his conciousness screaming that he should have done so much earlier?
Or maybe it's that show don't tell thing that DA2 didn't always succeed at...

I certainly don't think it succeeded. I wish one of the developers could explain what they were aiming at with Cullen defecting from Meredith's side because of Hawke being threatened, rather than the annulment of everyone in the Circle of Kirkwall over Anders' actions.

Sir JK wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If Hawke sided with Meredith, then I agree. If Hawke didn't, then I see it as a problem. When the straw is the Champion of Kirkwall and not the act of condemning an entire population of people to death for the actions of one single man (who she can easily arrest since he's standing right in front of her) simply because the people of Kirkwall "will demand blood", then I take issue with it.

Because in Cullen's mind Meredith's reasoning was legal? He does not know Anders was behind it. Meredith does not tell him. He fully expects the circle to lie about their guilt (I mean... who wouldn't? "Yes mr templar sir, we absolutely harbour blood mages and you're completely in the right to annull this circle. Please apply your blade of mercy right here" ). But when -she- breaks Chantry law... that finally opens his eyes.

And yes... there are templars who would not bat an eyelash at killing Hawke then and there. No matter what the law may say. Apparently, Cullen's not one of them. Something we see clear signs of if you do side the with the templars... despite his rethoric. 

Meredith never contests Orsino's claim that she is going to annul the Circle for something they didn't do (and he's standing right behind her during the exchange in the Gallows); she says it's an issue of appeasing a hypothetical mob again: "The grand cleric is dead, killed by a mage. The people will demand retribution, and I will give it to them."

Lob, honestly, I'd decided I couldn't support the Templars in DA2 once Cullen started talking. Expecting me to comply with slaughtering an entire tower of people for something one man did? Yeah, that was the point that I'd decided I could never support the Templars again. Collective punishment is a massive Berserk Button for me.

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Grace being manipulative is one thing; having the character explicitly blame Hawke in the scenario where he helped her because the developers wanted to provide us with the exact same scenario and outcome, no matter what the player previously chose to do, is another issue entirely.

No, it isn't. People blame others for their problems. It's not uncommon.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Having already pointed out the flaws or malevolence of individual mages at different times (as well as my interest in a Dalish protagonist taking down the Magister Corpyheus, who I certainly make no excuses for), I'm not sure how you can seriously make that claim. Corypheus was freed, and I never claimed that it didn't make sense for him to attack Hawke and the others, despite being freed from his prison. Frankly, I could just as easily say your pro-templar viewpoint is clouding your perception of me.

The half-darkspawn man whose empire is responsible for the fall of the Dales; another of your bias (which we all have, myself included)?
I suggest trying again.

As for Decimus and Grace, I found them to be flat; no depth.

Fair enough but that is not the same as their actions making no sense.

Upon seeing Hawke and his moiety crew, Decimus exclaims that the 'templars' have come for them, and even Grace acknowledges that they aren't templars. I didn't think it made sense then (especially with Merrill among his company), and I don't now.

And Decimus replies that he doesn't care who they are, only that they are facing them which is a fair assumption considering Hawke has just cut his/her way through his army of undead.
Maybe Decimus just doesn't have much problem killing some people.

There are pro-templar players who felt the same way about the depiction of templars in Dragon Age II, and I've often agreed that both factions tended to come across as caricatures. I've said, time and again, that I think that both sides should have been fleshed out, and that neither Meredith nor Orsino needed to become a monster or an over-the-top villain; that either character could have become an antagonist to the main character without turning into an out-and-out villain.

That's just it. You are using "caricatures" as a way of excusing their actions without facing the possiblity that some mages(Decimus and grace) might just be, to use a simplistic term, evil. Extending an olive branch to the Pro-Templars doesn't really change that.

Modifié par MisterJB, 21 septembre 2013 - 08:58 .

[duckley]

azarhal wrote...


Making Harrowed Tranquil is against Chantry law and that apparently happened every other week in Kirkwall Circle. There's no way Cullen wasn't aware of that one.

 Was this really a common practice -  making Mage's tranquil without cause. I understand making a Mage who passed their Harrowing tranquil if they used blood magic/became possessed but it was not my understanding that this was done routinely at the Gallows. Doesnt tranquility require approval from the First Enchanter?

I though a few rogue Templars may have done this through lies and deceit - i.e claiming the Mage was possesed but every other week! Ouch - how did they get away with that!

[Gwydden]

In Exile wrote...

Gwydden wrote...
It's certainly safer than an inept prison guard who lets his charges, potentially murderers and madmen, escape.

It's safer to drive those potential charges insane and make them hate all mundanes first before failing to keep them from escaping? Because his raping didn't do very much to stop people like Tahrone.

I never claimed Alrik was an outstanding templar. Just that he did his job better than Thrask. Now, whether you consider said work to be commendable or whether he did it better out of his own sadism rather than actual diligence is another matter entirely.

[In Exile]

Gwydden wrote...
I never claimed Alrik was an outstanding templar. Just that he did his job better than Thrask. Now, whether you consider said work to be commendable or whether he did it better out of his own sadism rather than actual diligence is another matter entirely.

I'm aware of what you said. I'm object to that. I don't think Captain Rapist did a good job at all, given the disaster that Kirkwall was even in Act I when it came to insane rogue blood mages. His sadism - beyond giving him the jollies - didn't even protect the templar recruits from Tahrone. 

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I suppose we will simply have to agree to disagree about Cullen.

Yeah, we probably will have to. Though I'm sure we'll end up debating it again in a later thread

I certainly don't think it succeeded. I wish one of the developers could explain what they were aiming at with Cullen defecting from Meredith's side because of Hawke being threatened, rather than the annulment of everyone in the Circle of Kirkwall over Anders' actions.

I doubt we'll see any deeper explanation other than what we already have (or what will come up in DA:I). We'll simply have to make do without and use our imagination to fill in the gaps. Hopefully they'll do a little bit better in DA:I on that front... that said however... it won't be a game tailor made to either of our preferences. We will, no matter how well written the game is, on occasion have to meet the writers and designers half-way.

There will be situations where we will find something that "does not make sense" again. We'll simply have to work around them.

Meredith never contests Orsino's claim that she is going to annul the Circle for something they didn't do (and he's standing right behind her during the exchange in the Gallows); she says it's an issue of appeasing a hypothetical mob again: "The grand cleric is dead, killed by a mage. The people will demand retribution, and I will give it to them."

She does, yes. But you really have to look for the innocence of the mages in her declaration to find it. She does not specify that a circle mage did it no, she does not outright refute Orsino's statements no. But does she really have to? Unless you know the truth or have serious reasons to doubt her every word there's not really a lot to go on.

Are you sure you're not just picking apart words now to find yet another fault with him?

Again, like I mentioned earlier, I do not mean to paint Cullen as completely innocent or free of fault. As a officer he's either guilty of severe negligence or severe incompetence. His views on tranquility and the nature of mages is troubling if not outright alarming. He should definantely be in treatment, not leading men. His idea of interrogating also leaves more than a few things wanting.

All good reasons to doubt him as a person.

Is really that he follows an order from his superior officer (to a point) his worst quality?

[Gwydden]

In Exile wrote...

Gwydden wrote...
I never claimed Alrik was an outstanding templar. Just that he did his job better than Thrask. Now, whether you consider said work to be commendable or whether he did it better out of his own sadism rather than actual diligence is another matter entirely.

I'm aware of what you said. I'm object to that. I don't think Captain Rapist did a good job at all, given the disaster that Kirkwall was even in Act I when it came to insane rogue blood mages. His sadism - beyond giving him the jollies - didn't even protect the templar recruits from Tahrone. 

He was a terrible templar. That's beyond questioning. But how did Thrask do better? Not as a person, but solely as a templar.

[Gwydden]

Again, like I mentioned earlier, I do not mean to paint Cullen as completely innocent or free of fault. As a officer he's either guilty of severe negligence or severe incompetence. His views on tranquility and the nature of mages is troubling if not outright alarming. He should definantely be in treatment, not leading men. His idea of interrogating also leaves more than a few things wanting.

All good reasons to doubt him as a person.

Is really that he follows an order from his superior officer (to a point) his worst quality?

Well, Meredith is not a lot more stable than Cullen. They both have had traumatic experiences related to mages, so I would say they are a little biased and rather inadequate for their jobs.

[MisterJB]

blackflamerose wrote...
:sighs:: Yeah, that's when the Templar cause lost me. In fact, it's because mages could theoretically become possessed at any time that they need to be treated like people. As of right now, the general attitude for most tends to be Then Let Me Be Evil (On TvTropes, just be careful not to fall victim to the time suck!). Keep telling people that they're monsters and responsible for all the evil in the world, and you're surprised that some turn to blood magic? Or that the leading cause of death in the Circle is suicide? <_<

::shrugs:: If mages could hold onto the fact that they are more than just demon beacons or evil incarnate, that they are in fact people with worth, that might keep people from turning to blood magic or demons. I just can't see that happening in the Circle system.

A fair point but here's the thing, education is no sure thing. While desperation creates monsters, people can grow up in loving homes where they lack nothing and are taught how we should all be good to each other and still become terrible human beings.
Locking someone up has a clear effect. A mage that is isolated from society and remains so is at no risk of harming others. The life and freedom of all normal people in Thedas seem quite a huge deal to gamble on the good intentions of mages who are subjected to all the temptations normals humans suffer from daily.

Ideally, we'd have both. But if the choice comes between either having steel bars and miles of land standing between myself and a mage intent on doing me and mine harm or having nothing but trust and years of teaching attempting to accomplish the same effect; that is to say, my safety; I'm going with the steel bars.

Would you feel safe with having a rapist alone with your wife if I assured you he spent his entire prison term being told how rape is wrong?

blackflamerose wrote...
Er, Alrik was the rapist, not Thrask. And yeah, I agree that something's rotten in the state of Denmark when the mundane population feels safer with abusive prison guards. The Chantry has much to answer for once my Inquisition begins.

Why the Chantry? If the population feels safer with abusive prison guards, doesn't that mean the fault lies with the captive population or the other prison guards?
Or, at the uttermost, the "mundane" population?

Modifié par MisterJB, 21 septembre 2013 - 09:14 .

[Reaverwind]

blackflamerose wrote...

In Exile wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
Yes, what Alrik did was awful. No one is arguing that. What I am saying is that, as a non-mage in Thedas; and thus, not part of the group being molested by Alrik; I'd feel safer with him in the Circle than Thrask who can't tell his second in command is an Abomination, thinks putting demons into corpses is A-ok and actively helps Abominations and Blood Mages escape from the Circle to where they can hurt non-mages such as myself and my family.

I don't feel safe with prison guards who are monstrous rapists. Since Thrask can't actually get away with raping and turning tranquil every mage in the Circle, what does do is create such a vile culture or torture and abuse that mages are pushed to rebellion, and then when the streets are flooded by dangerous and unhigned blood mages brought to that point in part by his abuse, I suffer.

The idea that you're safer with abusive prison guards is on its face unacceptable. 

Er, Alrik was the rapist, not Thrask. And yeah, I agree that something's rotten in the state of Denmark when the mundane population feels safer with abusive prison guards. The Chantry has much to answer for once my Inquisition begins.

The Chantry is LONG overdue for a Reformation, and not just because of their mishandling of the Circles. To add to their rap sheet, they're responsible for interferring with sovereign governments, overthrowing a sovereign government  (and I doubt the Chantry version of what happened in Kirkwall is more than half-truths), and if you want to go back further, inciting war.

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Grace being manipulative is one thing; having the character explicitly blame Hawke in the scenario where he helped her because the developers wanted to provide us with the exact same scenario and outcome, no matter what the player previously chose to do, is another issue entirely.

No, it isn't. People blame others for their problems. It's not uncommon.

Yes, it is. It's railroading the plot to give the same outcome. Having Grace condemn Hawke if he helped her in the same fashion that she does if Hawke handed her and the others over to the templars is the primary issue.

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Having already pointed out the flaws or malevolence of individual mages at different times (as well as my interest in a Dalish protagonist taking down the Magister Corpyheus, who I certainly make no excuses for), I'm not sure how you can seriously make that claim. Corypheus was freed, and I never claimed that it didn't make sense for him to attack Hawke and the others, despite being freed from his prison. Frankly, I could just as easily say your pro-templar viewpoint is clouding your perception of me.

The half-darkspawn man whose empire is responsible for the fall of the Dales; another of your bias (which we all have, myself included)?
I suggest trying again.

You mean Arlathan, the capital of the ancient elven kingdom, not the Dales.

Also, Corypheus is a Magister - a mage. I've also been willing to call out the Dalish when they screw up - I have condemned the Sabrae clan for attempted murder. I've also blamed Marethari for releasing Audacity. As for mages, I certainly don't excuse Danarius, Caladrius, or any other mages who commit horrible acts (like the ones who seem to kill people to enpower themselves in Denerim), whether they have ties to Tevinter or live outside the Imperium. I've never tried to defend Janeka for trying to release Corypheus.

My issue with Danarius is his exclaimation that apostate Hawke and Merrill are a templar vanguard, when the Dalish and the templars have a bloody history for centuries, and none of Hawke's companions even remotely look like they could be templars. I don't have an issue with a mage antagonist - my problem is that he doesn't really make sense. It's the same issue I have with Grace wanting revenge against the man who rescued her from the templars; thinking that Hawke turned on her makes absolutely no sense. Her reasoning is simply absurd, and it's why I have an issue with these two characters.

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

As for Decimus and Grace, I found them to be flat; no depth.

Fair enough but that is not the same as their actions making no sense.

I don't think they make sense, either.

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Upon seeing Hawke and his moiety crew, Decimus exclaims that the 'templars' have come for them, and even Grace acknowledges that they aren't templars. I didn't think it made sense then (especially with Merrill among his company), and I don't now.

And Decimus replies that he doesn't care who they are, only that they are facing them which is a fair assumption considering Hawke has just cut his/her way through his army of undead.
Maybe Decimus just doesn't have much problem killing some people.

Hawke and his crew cut their way through creatures that tried to kill them. It's a fair assumption that Hawke and his people don't want to die.

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

There are pro-templar players who felt the same way about the depiction of templars in Dragon Age II, and I've often agreed that both factions tended to come across as caricatures. I've said, time and again, that I think that both sides should have been fleshed out, and that neither Meredith nor Orsino needed to become a monster or an over-the-top villain; that either character could have become an antagonist to the main character without turning into an out-and-out villain.

That's just it. You are using "caricatures" as a way of excusing their actions without facing the possiblity that some mages(Decimus and grace) might just be, to use a simplistic term, evil. Extending an olive branch to the Pro-Templars doesn't really change that.

Being evil, and making absolutely no sense, are two different things. If Decimus was simply a bad guy - like Danarius or Hadriana - that would be one thing. When he assumes that Hawke and his people are templars, you're making him into an insane idiot. When Grace plots against the man who killed her to give me the same conflict that pro-templar Hawke encounters, then I take issue with it.

Again, I don't see the merit in your argument that I'm excusing them simply for being mages when I already condemn other mages who are bad, but who don't have the same narrative disconnect that I find with Decimus and Grace.

[Gwydden]

MisterJB wrote...

blackflamerose wrote...
:sighs:: Yeah, that's when the Templar cause lost me. In fact, it's because mages could theoretically become possessed at any time that they need to be treated like people. As of right now, the general attitude for most tends to be Then Let Me Be Evil (On TvTropes, just be careful not to fall victim to the time suck!). Keep telling people that they're monsters and responsible for all the evil in the world, and you're surprised that some turn to blood magic? Or that the leading cause of death in the Circle is suicide? <_<

::shrugs:: If mages could hold onto the fact that they are more than just demon beacons or evil incarnate, that they are in fact people with worth, that might keep people from turning to blood magic or demons. I just can't see that happening in the Circle system.

A fair point but here's the thing, education is no sure thing. While desperation creates monsters, people can grow up in loving homes where they lack nothing and are taught how we should all be good to each other and still become terrible human beings.
Locking someone up has a clear effect. A mage that is isolated from society and remains so is at no risk of harming others. The life and freedom of all normal people in Thedas seem quite a huge deal to gamble on the good intentions of mages who are subjected to all the temptations normals humans suffer from daily.

Ideally, we'd have both. But if the choice comes between either having steel bars and miles of land standing between myself and a mage intent on doing me and mine harm or having nothing but trust and years of teaching attempting to accomplish the same effect; that is to say, my safety; I'm going with the steel bars.

Would you feel safe with having a rapist alone with your wife if I assured you he spent his entire prison term being told how rape is wrong?

What about empathy? I mean, had you been borned a mage in Thedas, would you have been happy with your lot in life? Especially if you happened to end up in the Gallows or a similar Circle?

It's rather easy to make judgements on whether a particular group should be free or not when you do not belong to said group.

[Vit246]

Silfren wrote...
That those slides were jettisoned to force Cullen into a role as a major side character notwithstanding, they were a natural conclusion to his story.  DA2 even acknowledges this in the beginning: Greagoir sent Cullen to Kirkwall to get him away from the environment of his trauma, and Meredith apparently promoted him to Knight Captain because his views on mages were very much in line with her own....and then of course you get Cullen's own remarks about mages, though with less rabid mouth-foaming.  Great...but then, from that point on, it is all watered down and Cullen becomes suddenly a lot more reasonable, without any visible explanation given to players to show why.

This is my problem with Cullen. First, he considers all mages as weapons and cannot be treated like people with feelings. And Tranquility as no big deal. And then suddenly he reverses his position and sides with Hawke against Meredith no matter what he's done. Granted, a few years pass between Act 2 and Act 3 and who knows what might have possibly influenced his views so rather radically, since there is no visible explanation given to players. Of course, DA2 was rushed after all.

Modifié par Vit246, 21 septembre 2013 - 09:22 .