935 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

DarthLaxian wrote...

indeed, there should not be (killing innocents is not something you do if you can help it - annulments should only be possible if the whole circle is already dead (!))

How do you confirm the entire circle is dead? There's abominations walking about. You'd have to clear the tower first (making the RoA pointless).

Secondly - and more importantly - abominations. Abominations seek to tear the veil and force more demons into our world. More possesions. And how do you tell who is possesed and who isn't? Well, you can't.

It's like walking into a village with a deadly virus, collecting a few people that are alive and taking them home, happily thinkign that they are alive, so they can't possibly be infected or a carrier.

So basicly once something like Broken Circle happens, you neutralize everyone. Nuke them from orbit, to be sure.
Because risking multiple abominations breaking free is considered too great a risk.

[Lotion Soronarr]

ianvillan wrote...


Yet every mage is either an insane blood mage, a new tevinter convert or a ticking time tomb about to turn into an abomination.  because these seem to be the justifications the circle supporters give in their reasoning's.

Unfortunately for your argument, that one is true.
Every mage is a ticking time bomb and a portal to the fade.
Their personality (and sanity or lack thereoff) has diddly squat to do with it.

[azarhal]

SeismicGravy wrote...

I agree, but I think there should be conditions.

For example - A templar probably wouldn't think twice about joining a rogue or warrior class protagonist, but it would take a huge amount of convincing to stop one from trying to turn your mage character tranquil.

It's ridiculous to think that all Templars want to make all mages tranquils on sight.

It's also strange that people are asking for two mage-suspicious Chantry-related characters in the party. Cassandra already fit that slot. If there is to be a templar companion he/she needs a totally different point-of-view than Cassandra does.

[ianvillan]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DarthLaxian wrote...

indeed, there should not be (killing innocents is not something you do if you can help it - annulments should only be possible if the whole circle is already dead (!))

How do you confirm the entire circle is dead? There's abominations walking about. You'd have to clear the tower first (making the RoA pointless).

Secondly - and more importantly - abominations. Abominations seek to tear the veil and force more demons into our world. More possesions. And how do you tell who is possesed and who isn't? Well, you can't.

It's like walking into a village with a deadly virus, collecting a few people that are alive and taking them home, happily thinkign that they are alive, so they can't possibly be infected or a carrier.

So basicly once something like Broken Circle happens, you neutralize everyone. Nuke them from orbit, to be sure.
Because risking multiple abominations breaking free is considered too great a risk.

So Wynne who was the only one stopping the abominations from escaping while the Templars were hiding by the main exit should be murdered because her tower was attacked by a few mages will the same go for the children who escaped with Wynne maybe they were the true masterminds of the conspiracy so they should be murdered as well.
An annulment is called to kill the entire circle because Greagoir deemed a few guilty so all should die.

Will he also kill any surviving Templars in the tower including him and his own men because it has been shown Templars can be possessed or are they exempt from mass scale murder because they are not mages. 

[ianvillan]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

ianvillan wrote...


Yet every mage is either an insane blood mage, a new tevinter convert or a ticking time tomb about to turn into an abomination.  because these seem to be the justifications the circle supporters give in their reasoning's.

Unfortunately for your argument, that one is true.
Every mage is a ticking time bomb and a portal to the fade.
Their personality (and sanity or lack thereoff) has diddly squat to do with it.

So why should mages even bother with the Harrowing if it is pointless and all mages can be possessed at any time.

[Hellion Rex]

ianvillan wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

ianvillan wrote...


Yet every mage is either an insane blood mage, a new tevinter convert or a ticking time tomb about to turn into an abomination.  because these seem to be the justifications the circle supporters give in their reasoning's.

Unfortunately for your argument, that one is true.
Every mage is a ticking time bomb and a portal to the fade.
Their personality (and sanity or lack thereoff) has diddly squat to do with it.

So why should mages even bother with the Harrowing if it is pointless and all mages can be possessed at any time.

Indeed. Why not just make them all tranquil to save the templars trouble?

[The Elder King]

@ianvillain: The Harrowing determines if a mage can resist demons, it doesn't mean mage are safe from demons.
It doesn't involve some supernatural power that let mages free of demons. Those will always be a threat for mages (Wynne confirmed this).

Edit: I'd like to point out that the Harrowing isn't restricted to Circle mages. At least Malcolm Hawke made Bethany/Hawke pass an Harrowing. We don't know if other apostates (expecially former Circle mages) make their children or other mages pass through it.

Modifié par hhh89, 24 septembre 2013 - 01:32 .

[Hellion Rex]

hhh89 wrote...

The Harrowing determines if a mage can resist demons. It doesn't involve some supernatural power that let mages free of demons. Those will always be a threat for mages (Wynne confirmed this).

So we leave them all in the circle just in case?

[The Elder King]

eluvianix wrote...
So we leave them all in the circle just in case?

I was talking about the Harrowing's goal, which some apostates seem to practice too, and that mages are never free from demons. I didn't express my opinion on the matter. I have a model I'd prefer, but I doubt it'll be ever present in a DA game. You can see it in my thread list in my profile i you wish.
In general, I believe that mages should have far more rights that they have in the previous model, but it should exist a Organization with templar abilities to vigil on the mages and their interactions with non-mages, which should have the goal of protect both sides, depending on the situation. All of this regardless of the system adopted.

Who knows, maybe we can direct the Inquisition to fulfill this role.

Modifié par hhh89, 24 septembre 2013 - 01:43 .

[Vortex13]

hhh89 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
So we leave them all in the circle just in case?

I was talking about the Harrowing's goal, which some apostates seem to practice too, and that mages are never free from demons. I didn't express my opinion on the matter. I have a model I'd prefer, but I doubt it'll be ever present in a DA game. You can see it in my thread list in my profile i you wish.
In general, I believe that mages should have far more rights that they have in the previous model, but it should exist a Organization with templar abilities to vigil on the mages and their interactions with non-mages, which should have the goal of protect both sides, depending on the situation. All of this regardless of the system adopted.

Who knows, maybe we can direct the Inquisition to fulfill this role.

Same here. 

I want to establish a reformed Circle with greater mage rights, but the system itself is nessary.

[ianvillan]

hhh89 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
So we leave them all in the circle just in case?

I was talking about the Harrowing's goal, which some apostates seem to practice too, and that mages are never free from demons. I didn't express my opinion on the matter. I have a model I'd prefer, but I doubt it'll be ever present in a DA game. You can see it in my thread list in my profile i you wish.
In general, I believe that mages should have far more rights that they have in the previous model, but it should exist a Organization with templar abilities to vigil on the mages and their interactions with non-mages, which should have the goal of protect both sides, depending on the situation. All of this regardless of the system adopted.

Who knows, maybe we can direct the Inquisition to fulfill this role.

This is meant to be what the circle does now but it has been proved to not work as long as the jailers who have absolute power are taught by the very organisation that is meant to protect the mages, that the mages are born cursed that they are less than human that the very god that you are zealously devoted to has punished them all for a crime century's ago and that there very existence is a threat to the safety of thedas, and that anyone of them can turn into an abomination at any time.

Modifié par ianvillan, 24 septembre 2013 - 01:59 .

[The Elder King]

@Vortex13: if we'll have to choose the outcome of the war, I hope that either we'll have a third, neutral-middle ground choice, or that we can influence towards a more moderate (as well as an more extreme, if we want) outcome the side we support.
If there'll be only two options and both are exclusively extremistic (which isn't necessarily true), I wouldn't be able to compete my canon character, and roll a completely pro-mage or pro-templar/Chantry character.
It wouldn't be the first time I'd have to do something similar in a Bioware game. ME2 made (for me) impossible to complete a Sole Survivor Shepard.

[The Elder King]

@ianvillain: I never said that this organization should be affiliated to the Chantry, did I? And I never said that they should be jailors.

Beside, mages are more dangerous than common people. They are during their all life under the threats of demons. They have great powers. An organization to protect non-mages form mages (and the opposite as well) should exist.

Modifié par hhh89, 24 septembre 2013 - 02:10 .

[Xilizhra]

hhh89 wrote...

@ianvillain: The Harrowing determines if a mage can resist demons, it doesn't mean mage are safe from demons.
It doesn't involve some supernatural power that let mages free of demons. Those will always be a threat for mages (Wynne confirmed this).

Edit: I'd like to point out that the Harrowing isn't restricted to Circle mages. At least Malcolm Hawke made Bethany/Hawke pass an Harrowing. We don't know if other apostates (expecially former Circle mages) make their children or other mages pass through it.

Bethany does not go through the Harrowing per se. Rather, Malcolm has some test for her involving the Fade, but presumably of less lethality--her codex entry in Act 2 involves her passing her "long-delayed Harrowing."

[ianvillan]

hhh89 wrote...

@Vortex13: if we'll have to choose the outcome of the war, I hope that either we'll have a third, neutral-middle ground choice, or that we can influence towards a more moderate (as well as an more extreme, if we want) outcome the side we support.
If there'll be only two options and both are exclusively extremistic (which isn't necessarily true), I wouldn't be able to compete my canon character, and roll a completely pro-mage or pro-templar/Chantry character.
It wouldn't be the first time I'd have to do something similar in a Bioware game. ME2 made (for me) impossible to complete a Sole Survivor Shepard.

If think a problem is that not many fans would agree what is a fair neutral-middle ground for all involved and one or both side will say that it favours the other side.

[ianvillan]

hhh89 wrote...

@ianvillain: I never said that this organization should be affiliated to the Chantry, did I?

But the Templars follow the chant of light and are taught to believe in all the bad things it says about mages, the Templars rely on the Lyrium that they get from the Chantry. If you then take the Chantry out of control of the Templars then the mages might as well be in the same position as they are now because even with supposed Chantry oversight Templars do what they please to mages, with no oversight they you have no chance for mages.

[The Elder King]

@Xilzhra: I know that Malcolm's 'Harrowing'/test is different from the Circle's one. A test is needed regardless, to test/teach mages to resist demons. Since I don't like the Harrowing I'm in favour of Malcolm's test, regardless of which system is adopted post-war.
@ianvillain: obviously the solutions bioware could write for the mage-templar war aren't going to satisfly everyone. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be more, or more variety of the two.

[Xilizhra]

hhh89 wrote...

@Xilzhra: I know that Malcolm's 'Harrowing'/test is different from the Circle's one. A test is needed regardless, to test/teach mages to resist demons. Since I don't like the Harrowing I'm in favour of Malcolm's test, regardless of which system is adopted post-war.
@ianvillain: obviously the solutions bioware could write for the mage-templar war aren't going to satisfly everyone. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be more, or more variety of the two.

If it helps, I'm certain that there will be no possible extremist templar solution.

[The Elder King]

ianvillan wrote...
But the Templars follow the chant of light and are taught to believe in all the bad things it says about mages, the Templars rely on the Lyrium that they get from the Chantry. If you then take the Chantry out of control of the Templars then the mages might as well be in the same position as they are now because even with supposed Chantry oversight Templars do what they please to mages, with no oversight they you have no chance for mages.

I'm not talking about the templars, I'm talking about a new org with templar abilities. We don't know if the Chantry still has the control of the lyrium trade.

[Vortex13]

hhh89 wrote...

@Vortex13: if we'll have to choose the outcome of the war, I hope that either we'll have a third, neutral-middle ground choice, or that we can influence towards a more moderate (as well as an more extreme, if we want) outcome the side we support.
If there'll be only two options and both are exclusively extremistic (which isn't necessarily true), I wouldn't be able to compete my canon character, and roll a completely pro-mage or pro-templar/Chantry character.
It wouldn't be the first time I'd have to do something similar in a Bioware game. ME2 made (for me) impossible to complete a Sole Survivor Shepard.

Well I can personally say that I hope any (as you say) neutral-middle ground, is NOT like the Geth & Quarian resolution in ME 3.

Don't get me wrong, I want to be able to reach a middle ground, but all it boiled down to in ME 3 was Shepard yelling and then suddenly Geth and Quarians are BFFs. I don't want DA:I to present a paticular choice as the best one with absoulotly no setbacks. Both the Templars and the Mages (at least the hardliners) are going to be against any form of concesion to the other side, maybe choosing such a stance will require the Inquisitor to remove the extremist elements from each faction; which while allowing the player to have both parties, will result in less effective leadership on each side. Sacrifice (on both sides) will have to take place to achieve a peaceful resolution.

[Xilizhra]

Vortex13 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

@Vortex13: if we'll have to choose the outcome of the war, I hope that either we'll have a third, neutral-middle ground choice, or that we can influence towards a more moderate (as well as an more extreme, if we want) outcome the side we support.
If there'll be only two options and both are exclusively extremistic (which isn't necessarily true), I wouldn't be able to compete my canon character, and roll a completely pro-mage or pro-templar/Chantry character.
It wouldn't be the first time I'd have to do something similar in a Bioware game. ME2 made (for me) impossible to complete a Sole Survivor Shepard.

Well I can personally say that I hope any (as you say) neutral-middle ground, is NOT like the Geth & Quarian resolution in ME 3.

Don't get me wrong, I want to be able to reach a middle ground, but all it boiled down to in ME 3 was Shepard yelling and then suddenly Geth and Quarians are BFFs. I don't want DA:I to present a paticular choice as the best one with absoulotly no setbacks. Both the Templars and the Mages (at least the hardliners) are going to be against any form of concesion to the other side, maybe choosing such a stance will require the Inquisitor to remove the extremist elements from each faction; which while allowing the player to have both parties, will result in less effective leadership on each side. Sacrifice (on both sides) will have to take place to achieve a peaceful resolution.

I don't know. That might work if it was between the mages and the Chantry, with the Red Templars being the common enemy we know we have already.

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

@Xilzhra: I know that Malcolm's 'Harrowing'/test is different from the Circle's one. A test is needed regardless, to test/teach mages to resist demons. Since I don't like the Harrowing I'm in favour of Malcolm's test, regardless of which system is adopted post-war.
@ianvillain: obviously the solutions bioware could write for the mage-templar war aren't going to satisfly everyone. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be more, or more variety of the two.

If it helps, I'm certain that there will be no possible extremist templar solution.

Which would be killing all mages? This is a given. I'm more worried about the return of the status-quo for the pro-templar/Chantry solution, and a freedom with no means to regulate the relationship between mages and non-mages for the pro-mage solution. I don't disagree with mages be free in the mage outcome (is kind of an obvious outcome) but someone should regulate the situation. I'll be fine with the Inquisition talking this role.

[The Elder King]

@Vortex: I agree that the third, middle ground choice shouldn't be the best one. Every outcome o the war should have its pro and cons.

[Vortex13]

Xilizhra wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

@Vortex13: if we'll have to choose the outcome of the war, I hope that either we'll have a third, neutral-middle ground choice, or that we can influence towards a more moderate (as well as an more extreme, if we want) outcome the side we support.
If there'll be only two options and both are exclusively extremistic (which isn't necessarily true), I wouldn't be able to compete my canon character, and roll a completely pro-mage or pro-templar/Chantry character.
It wouldn't be the first time I'd have to do something similar in a Bioware game. ME2 made (for me) impossible to complete a Sole Survivor Shepard.

Well I can personally say that I hope any (as you say) neutral-middle ground, is NOT like the Geth & Quarian resolution in ME 3.

Don't get me wrong, I want to be able to reach a middle ground, but all it boiled down to in ME 3 was Shepard yelling and then suddenly Geth and Quarians are BFFs. I don't want DA:I to present a paticular choice as the best one with absoulotly no setbacks. Both the Templars and the Mages (at least the hardliners) are going to be against any form of concesion to the other side, maybe choosing such a stance will require the Inquisitor to remove the extremist elements from each faction; which while allowing the player to have both parties, will result in less effective leadership on each side. Sacrifice (on both sides) will have to take place to achieve a peaceful resolution.

I don't know. That might work if it was between the mages and the Chantry, with the Red Templars being the common enemy we know we have already.

Red Templars, Demon worshipping and/or crazy Blood Mages, Demons coming through the Tears, there are lots of common enemies.

[ianvillan]

hhh89 wrote...

ianvillan wrote...
But the Templars follow the chant of light and are taught to believe in all the bad things it says about mages, the Templars rely on the Lyrium that they get from the Chantry. If you then take the Chantry out of control of the Templars then the mages might as well be in the same position as they are now because even with supposed Chantry oversight Templars do what they please to mages, with no oversight they you have no chance for mages.

I'm not talking about the templars, I'm talking about a new org with templar abilities. We don't know if the Chantry still has the control of the lyrium trade.

I know you are just giving ideas and don't have all the answers but how could you guarantee the mages rights and that the same things that happen now don't happen again, which nation spanning organisation will these new Templars answer to and what is to change the indoctrination the normal people have been told about mages.

If somehow Bioware can answer these questions so the mage supporters are more satisfied than they are now and the Templar supporters are satisfied the mages are not a threat then maybe this argument could end.