935 réponses à ce sujet

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I think the implication was that Meredith's increasingly erratic behavior caused him to doubt her and her extremism.

[LobselVith8]

Sir JK wrote...

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  

Possibly. :happy:

Debates aside, I'm curious to get some insight from you. What do you think Cullen will be like in Inquisition, if he is a possible companion. If you've seen my recent posts, you probably know I'm interested in a Dalish mage; how do you think Cullen would react to a Dalish maleficar with authority and military power? I recall his 'heathen' line to Oghren and it made me curious.

Sir JK wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Fair enough. Given the schism between Lambert's faction and Justina's, do you think Cullen sided with either one?

Sir JK wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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? 

It's simply how I view Cullen. His status as a templar does make me wonder how it would work to have him working for a mage Inquisitior, since an apostate (or maleficar, in terms of a Dalish protagonist who uses magic that isn't sanctioned by the Chantry) seems to run contrary to the tenants of the Templar Order.

[azarhal]

duckley wrote...

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!

According to Anders sources it is a common practice (he says this in either Act 2 or Act 3). But you see a few cases starting with Karl in Act 1. Then you got Ser Arlik lady mage he wanted to rape after he made her tranquil. As for the First Enchanter's approval it is recommended, but not required if I remember properly one of David's Gaider post one the subject.

Funny enough, the first time I played DA2, I was wondering why the biggest circle in the Free Marches needed mages to be transfered from other circles to teach. On replaying, I realized the reason for it: adult mages don't last long in the Gallows.

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Debates aside, I'm curious to get some insight from you. What do you think Cullen will be like in Inquisition, if he is a possible companion. If you've seen my recent posts, you probably know I'm interested in a Dalish mage; how do you think Cullen would react to a Dalish maleficar with authority and military power? I recall his 'heathen' line to Oghren and it made me curious.

If I am allowed to dream a little:
I imagine he's something of a lost soul. He's seen the worst of what mages can do and the worst abuses of the templar authorities and he does not know what is right anymore. Following the player because he wants to figure out what is right. He still believes in the templar cause and some of the tools at their disposal, he's just not sure that they've been used correctly. He'd be clay in the players hands, someone to mold either into a dedicated templar of the old model or someone that you could convince that the old order did not work and somehting new need to be figured out.

That's the potential I think he has anyways... not that he need to be a companion for that (/but it'd be better).

As for your questions... I think he'd have his reservations, but would give you a chance. He'd vocally voice his displeasure should you abuse magic, especially to gain an edge. Blood magic would be a quick way to make an enemy of him... My guess is that he'd initially be rather dismissive of the elven religion... but you could probably make him a bit more openminded.

Naturally I fully expect to be wrong... I'd be satisfied as long as he was interesting really.

Fair enough. Given the schism between Lambert's faction and Justina's, do you think Cullen sided with either one?

Have not enough data for that one... it all depends on what Lambert's faction stands for, now that Lambert is (likely) gone and what Justinia preaches. I'd like to think Cullen is a moderate, but I would not be surprised if he ended up with the templars.

It's simply how I view Cullen. His status as a templar does make me wonder how it would work to have him working for a mage Inquisitior, since an apostate (or maleficar, in terms of a Dalish protagonist who uses magic that isn't sanctioned by the Chantry) seems to run contrary to the tenants of the Templar Order.

It depends on how you use it, no? Technically the central creed is: "Magic is meant to serve man, not to rule him" so in theory... if you use normal leadership to rule and use your magic to help people, you're following the teachings of Andraste. It'd probably take some convincing to make any templar see that... but ultimately it boils down to how you use it and who you are as a person.

Responsibility and stability is key... only the most rabid and hateful templars could take issue with you if you employed those traits.

[MisterJB]

Gwydden wrote...
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.

You're right, I don't belong to that group which means I have to be concerned about my own and what benefits it. Empathy is fine but, logically speaking, I'd rather rely on security measures such as locked doors, isolation and anti-magic guards to protect normals rather than the good feelings of the mages.

And, for the record, other than Wynne, I've never seen a mage attempt to walk a mile in a non-mage's shoes as well. Imagine trying to coexist with people that can strick the skin from your bones with a thought.

[MWImexico]

In Exile wrote...

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-black.

LobselVith8 wrote...
...
It's simply how I view Cullen. His status as a templar does make me wonder how it would work to have him working for a mage Inquisitior, since an apostate (or maleficar, in terms of a Dalish protagonist who uses magic that isn't sanctioned by the Chantry) seems to run contrary to the tenants of the Templar Order.

I would say pragmatism. With the tear on the veil, the demons, the red templars and civil wars, there are plenty of reasons for someone to side with the Inquisitor in his attempt of bringing order into Thedas.

[Gwydden]

MisterJB wrote...

Gwydden wrote...
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.

You're right, I don't belong to that group which means I have to be concerned about my own and what benefits it. Empathy is fine but, logically speaking, I'd rather rely on security measures such as locked doors, isolation and anti-magic guards to protect normals rather than the good feelings of the mages.

And, for the record, other than Wynne, I've never seen a mage attempt to walk a mile in a non-mage's shoes as well. Imagine trying to coexist with people that can strick the skin from your bones with a thought.

I agree that mages need to be policed, and that you cannot count on people just behaving. What I'm saying, and what you also mention in your post, is that mages and mundanes are a danger to each other. How do you determine what group gets its freedom restricted for the other's security? By simple arithmetics (there are more mundanes than mages) or simply by self preservation instinct (you are not a mage)? Neither sounds like a very legitimate way of making such a complex decission.

Yes, you're not a mage, but that is because such a thing doesn't exist in the real world. It's not a real posibility for anyone. Let's say you had been born in Thedas. In that case, you could have been a mage. If you had been, the fact that you and others like you had to be punished because you happened to have a quality others lack would seem rather arbitrary since you might question what makes the rights of mundanes more important than those of mages.

[dduane o]

Isn't Cassandra a seeker, kind of a templar but stricter?

[cjones91]

MisterJB wrote...

Gwydden wrote...
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.

You're right, I don't belong to that group which means I have to be concerned about my own and what benefits it. Empathy is fine but, logically speaking, I'd rather rely on security measures such as locked doors, isolation and anti-magic guards to protect normals rather than the good feelings of the mages.

And, for the record, other than Wynne, I've never seen a mage attempt to walk a mile in a non-mage's shoes as well. Imagine trying to coexist with people that can strick the skin from your bones with a thought.

Why are you trying to make it non mages vs mages?What you are talking about is the very same logic bigots use to make the "other" people the enemy simply because they are different from them.

[Gwydden]

MWImexico wrote...

In Exile wrote...

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-black.

LobselVith8 wrote...
...
It's simply how I view Cullen. His status as a templar does make me wonder how it would work to have him working for a mage Inquisitior, since an apostate (or maleficar, in terms of a Dalish protagonist who uses magic that isn't sanctioned by the Chantry) seems to run contrary to the tenants of the Templar Order.

I would say pragmatism. With the tear on the veil, the demons, the red templars and civil wars, there are plenty of reasons for someone to side with the Inquisitor in his attempt of bringing order into Thedas.

It certainly can't get any more implausible that all those different, random people doing Hawke's chores during as much as seven years. With the tear in the Veil in Inquisition, I think will be fine (that actually came out as a big sarcasm but you get my drift).

[In Exile]

cjones91 wrote...
Why are you trying to make it non mages vs mages?What you are talking about is the very same logic bigots use to make the "other" people the enemy simply because they are different from them.

Mages are different, though. I don't think hating the abuse that's been perpetrated by the Circle means ignoring the fact that mages are, at the end of the day, effectively superhumans compared to the average mundane. 

[Gwydden]

cjones91 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Gwydden wrote...
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.

You're right, I don't belong to that group which means I have to be concerned about my own and what benefits it. Empathy is fine but, logically speaking, I'd rather rely on security measures such as locked doors, isolation and anti-magic guards to protect normals rather than the good feelings of the mages.

And, for the record, other than Wynne, I've never seen a mage attempt to walk a mile in a non-mage's shoes as well. Imagine trying to coexist with people that can strick the skin from your bones with a thought.

Why are you trying to make it non mages vs mages?What you are talking about is the very same logic bigots use to make the "other" people the enemy simply because they are different from them.

You have to admit, the point of equality in our world is that everyone is supposed to actually be equal. In the case of mages and non mages that doesn't apply.

Modifié par Gwydden, 21 septembre 2013 - 10:32 .

[cjones91]

dduane o wrote...

Isn't Cassandra a seeker, kind of a templar but stricter?

Seekers are above templars and aren't supposed to do their jobs unless the templars in question are doing bad things.

[cjones91]

In Exile wrote...

cjones91 wrote...
Why are you trying to make it non mages vs mages?What you are talking about is the very same logic bigots use to make the "other" people the enemy simply because they are different from them.

Mages are different, though. I don't think hating the abuse that's been perpetrated by the Circle means ignoring the fact that mages are, at the end of the day, effectively superhumans compared to the average mundane. 

It's still bigotry to make them the enemy simply because people are born with magic,bigots in real life make other people they don't like seem different because it's easier to hate and dehumanize them that way.

Modifié par cjones91, 21 septembre 2013 - 10:36 .

[In Exile]

cjones91 wrote...
It's still bigotry to make them the enemy simply because people are born with magic,bigots in real life make other people they don't like seem different because it's easier to hate and dehumanize them that way.

Mages are a natural ruling class. A better comparison of IRL tension is between the ultra-rich and the very poor today, or what we had when the peasants would rise up against their noble masters. There's an institutional disparity of power. Only with mages, it's a fundamental difference in power created by nature, and it's a bigger gap than anything IRL. A single mage in DA is like a tank, anti-personnel vehicle and mobile hospital rolled into one. They're like gods.

What the Chantry does and what the Circle is can't be acceptable, but there is a very real reason for fear, tension and conflict. 

[cjones91]

In Exile wrote...

cjones91 wrote...
It's still bigotry to make them the enemy simply because people are born with magic,bigots in real life make other people they don't like seem different because it's easier to hate and dehumanize them that way.

Mages are a natural ruling class. A better comparison of IRL tension is between the ultra-rich and the very poor today, or what we had when the peasants would rise up against their noble masters. There's an institutional disparity of power. Only with mages, it's a fundamental difference in power created by nature, and it's a bigger gap than anything IRL. A single mage in DA is like a tank, anti-personnel vehicle and mobile hospital rolled into one. They're like gods.

What the Chantry does and what the Circle is can't be acceptable, but there is a very real reason for fear, tension and conflict. 

If you ask me pissing off people with super powers by mistreating them is stupid and it's no wonder the mages rebelled from the Chantry.If non mages want to lynch people with magic then they better be ready to accept the consequences of the mages fighting back.

[cjones91]

MasterScribe wrote...

I want to see an elf or dwarf templar.

Surely, one doesn't have to be an Andrastian to hunt and capture mages.

Elves believe magic is apart of everyone and so they have a very different view of magic and mages than the people in Chantry controlled lands do.Dwarves don't really care since they aren't threatened by mages like non dwarves are because they are resistent to magic.

[Laughing_Man]

Hmm... a templar companion? Sure! I hope we get to kill him too...

And people need to stop trying to justify the chantry-templar behavior on the magic issue.
Creating a powerfull police force armed with anti-magic "technology" and sympathetic mages to handle the inevitable magical crimes? sure.

Whole-sale oppression of anyone born with magic? It's both criminally insane and needlessly cruel.

[Laughing_Man]

MasterScribe wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...

I want to see an elf or dwarf templar.

Surely, one doesn't have to be an Andrastian to hunt and capture mages.

Elves believe magic is apart of everyone and so they have a very different view of magic and mages than the people in Chantry controlled lands do.Dwarves don't really care since they aren't threatened by mages like non dwarves are because they are resistent to magic.

Individual elves and dwarves might not adhere to the mainstream views of their cultures. 

Templars are the military arm of the mostly racist chantry, so they are not going to pick no-humans if they have a choice.
Elves take care of problem-mages on their own usually.
Dwarves don't really have mages, and are more concerned about mages potential usefulnes to them,
than with the chantry's prejeduices.

[Laughing_Man]

*shrug* I suppose.
However, it makes more sense for them to guard their own interests than to enroll and be brain washed by whoever controls the remaining loyal templars.

Non-human mercenaries sound more logical to me than non-human templars.

[MisterJB]

Gwydden wrote...
I agree that mages need to be policed, and that you cannot count on people just behaving. What I'm saying, and what you also mention in your post, is that mages and mundanes are a danger to each other. How do you determine what group gets its freedom restricted for the other's security? By simple arithmetics (there are more mundanes than mages) or simply by self preservation instinct (you are not a mage)? Neither sounds like a very legitimate way of making such a complex decission.

Yes, you're not a mage, but that is because such a thing doesn't exist in the real world. It's not a real posibility for anyone. Let's say you had been born in Thedas. In that case, you could have been a mage. If you had been, the fact that you and others like you had to be punished because you happened to have a quality others lack would seem rather arbitrary since you might question what makes the rights of mundanes more important than those of mages.

If we assume that the worth of a mage's life is the same as that of a normal person, then it would still be the mages who would have their freedoms restricted.
This because normals also have their freedoms restricted everyday. It's the whole point of the legal system; our freedoms are restricted from birth so that we may coexist and these restrictions apply not if we have given indications of being dangerous but by default.
Logically, since mages are more dangerous than normal people, their freedoms should be more restricted to account for this fact. And this is no more punishment than the restriction non-mages will have to deal with everyday.

But, ultimately, there is no such thing as an inherent right. Non-mages are in power because they fought for it. Which is why I don't begrudge mages if they fight for the benefit of their group or themselves while also opposing so that non-mages; which is the group I identify with; can continue to thrive. It's what we all must do.