2497 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

The people who hate this the most are pro-mages, because it destroys their "evil chantry uses lyrium just to control tempalrs" theory.

Not really. People don't need to be pro-mage to notice a main character says one thing as part of the lore itself but it later gets retconned. People can just as easily be concerned about story lore consistency.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Which is unfortunate for the Templars, since that is explicitly what they were ready to handle. (As was my point.)

Edit: More specifically: "We were prepared for one or two abominations, not the whole horde that descended upon us!"

thats depends what kind abomnation we have to deal pride demon he presents huge danger for city weaker demons when still powerful they are don't have such chances examples abomnation in codex entry where he is killed by squad of templars still he killed most of them and well meredith sister who was killed.

... I can only assume you think you just argued against my
point. Uh, no, the gameplay and story segregation was in the Warden not
having a remarkably slow, painful, and boring-to-play time climbing the
Tower through a horde of god-like supermonsters, instead having to deal
largely with ordinary demons and non-magic-wielding abominations.  

I don't quite understand.

I'm using the parts they agree on, and the fact that the Chantry
would not praise mages as their main advantage if they could get away
with not doing so. It seems to me you're going to need an actual
argument if you want to brush both of those aside.

Well as chantry isn't completely full of peoples who hate mages some have own opinion and after help of mages they could have to do that well wynne ,mage warden , mage hawke after war  (battle in hawke case) chantry may not like it but they have to approve that.

Enough for the Joining, and probably enough to kill a whole
bunch of people. Why exactly is not having many strong mages an argument
for not fielding any mages?'

Rly how many mages we have in grey warden ranks?
Because we have army of better peoples who want put down peoples so cost is war with them and bad reputation (if someone care about that) for few useful not worthy. 

Mages could be trained to cope, but we probably won't have the
option. And your argument against placing them behind a row of soldiers?
(If salient?)

If we talk about averge mage argument is abomnations if we talk about stronger one ^

A horde of abominations like the kind I'm picturing in DA2 would just tear the place and people apart. One abomination is essentially a natural disaster.

First ^

So DA:O had Alistairs lines changed in the last second becoase of gameplay? So what?

Cry retcon all you want, lyrium is canonicly needed.
There
is no lore contradiction - it exists if two official pieces of lore
contradict. Alistairs line is no longer valid (as stated by the devs),
hence no contradiction. A change for the better.

The people who
hate this the most are pro-mages, because it destroys their "evil
chantry uses lyrium just to control tempalrs" theory.

What you are talking about dude if devs said that we was allowed play only as human and then we will able to play as other races that mean elf inq doesn't exist? They chagned that and released as final product in what they stated that lyrium isn't needed and not because of gameplay because addiction is still there then they changed they mind and decided that lyrium is needed what is retcon. 

[Silfren]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Which is unfortunate for the Templars, since that is explicitly what they were ready to handle. (As was my point.)

Edit: More specifically: "We were prepared for one or two abominations, not the whole horde that descended upon us!"

thats depends what kind abomnation we have to deal pride demon he presents huge danger for city weaker demons when still powerful they are don't have such chances examples abomnation in codex entry where he is killed by squad of templars still he killed most of them and well meredith sister who was killed.

... I can only assume you think you just argued against my
point. Uh, no, the gameplay and story segregation was in the Warden not
having a remarkably slow, painful, and boring-to-play time climbing the
Tower through a horde of god-like supermonsters, instead having to deal
largely with ordinary demons and non-magic-wielding abominations.  

I don't quite understand.

Then you know how the rest of us feel when we try to make sense of your posts.

[LobselVith8]

dragonflight288 wrote...

The people who hate this the most are pro-mages, because it destroys their "evil chantry uses lyrium just to control tempalrs" theory.

Not really. People don't need to be pro-mage to notice a main character says one thing as part of the lore itself but it later gets retconned. People can just as easily be concerned about story lore consistency.

I find it odd that anyone would label it as a pro-mage view of the dialogue when you consider that Alistair said it from a pro-templar perspective (with some inferred contempt for the Chantry over their treatment of the templars).

[Dave of Canada]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I find it odd that anyone would label it as a pro-mage view of the dialogue when you consider that Alistair said it from a pro-templar perspective (with some inferred contempt for the Chantry over their treatment of the templars).

Because pro-mage tend to try and discredit the Chantry at every point.

Alistair decredited the Chantry which means the Chantry was proven right and they've got legitimate reasons for feeding Templar their lyrium rather than just being overtly-controlling.

[Hellion Rex]

Dave of Canada wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I find it odd that anyone would label it as a pro-mage view of the dialogue when you consider that Alistair said it from a pro-templar perspective (with some inferred contempt for the Chantry over their treatment of the templars).

Because pro-mage tend to try and discredit the Chantry at every point.

Alistair decredited the Chantry which means the Chantry was proven right and they've got legitimate reasons for feeding Templar their lyrium rather than just being overtly-controlling.

You have got it wrong. That viewpoint is completely untrue. I am always pro-mage, but I don't have a problem with the Chantry itself. Heck, the Divine even helped the mages to escape at the end of Asunder. It is the zealotry that we find within both templars and Chantry that I take issue with. I have no problem with the organizations themself.

[Br3admax]

The key word that you even bolded is "tend," good sir. That is not completely untrue. It's become very prevalent here.

[Cainhurst Crow]

↑ Hes right you know. Does happen often enough to be noticeable. In some posters more than others.

[Hellion Rex]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

↑ Hes right you know. Does happen often enough to be noticeable. In some posters more than others.

Fine. "Tend to". But mages hardly have a monopoly on extremism.

Modifié par eluvianix, 17 octobre 2013 - 06:09 .

[Senya]

True. I tend to argue the Templar side because I'm on no one's side, but the Mage side is the most popular, it seems.

[Hellion Rex]

almostinsane99 wrote...

True. I tend to argue the Templar side because I'm on no one's side, but the Mage side is the most popular, it seems.

Really? I feel like the "Templar" side has a pretty decent following as well. 

[dragonflight288]

Dave of Canada wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I find it odd that anyone would label it as a pro-mage view of the dialogue when you consider that Alistair said it from a pro-templar perspective (with some inferred contempt for the Chantry over their treatment of the templars).

Because pro-mage tend to try and discredit the Chantry at every point.

Alistair decredited the Chantry which means the Chantry was proven right and they've got legitimate reasons for feeding Templar their lyrium rather than just being overtly-controlling.

I may be pro-mage, but I major in English Writing and Literature at College, and for me, it has next to nothing to do with how right or wrong the Chantry is, but it's more an issue of story consistency. Were it never contradicted and lyrium never needed, then huzzah and all, and if Alistair never said it, then again there wouldn't have been an inconsistency and there wouldn't be a point theorizing having warriors trained in templar talents without the lyrium, as has been done in many fanfics, theories, and predictions of future games.

I don't really care for retcons in general, because it usually comes down to the writers inability to take the story where they want it to go within the bounds already set by the lore.

Now, if Inquisition came along and gave us a perfectly logical reason, like the Chantry slips some lyrium into the food of its recruits, but they aren't actually told until they take their vows, then we would have a logical reason why Alistair wouldn't have known seeing as he never took those vows. The Chantry would be right about templars needing lyrium, and I'd simply shrug and say 'cool.'

I'd at least prefer something along those lines than be expected to completely forget one of the main criticisms a main character specifically says as "that never happened."

[Senya]

eluvianix wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

True. I tend to argue the Templar side because I'm on no one's side, but the Mage side is the most popular, it seems.

Really? I feel like the "Templar" side has a pretty decent following as well. 

I'm here sporadically, truthfully, but it seems that way here along with fanfiction.net.

[Ryzaki]

almostinsane99 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

True. I tend to argue the Templar side because I'm on no one's side, but the Mage side is the most popular, it seems.

Really? I feel like the "Templar" side has a pretty decent following as well. 

I'm here sporadically, truthfully, but it seems that way here along with fanfiction.net.

What? You want me to write some pro templar fanfics? 

[Hellion Rex]

Ryzaki wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

True. I tend to argue the Templar side because I'm on no one's side, but the Mage side is the most popular, it seems.

Really? I feel like the "Templar" side has a pretty decent following as well. 

I'm here sporadically, truthfully, but it seems that way here along with fanfiction.net.

What? You want me to write some pro templar fanfics? 

Don't you dare. I love your fics the way they are.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Silfren wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Which is unfortunate for the Templars, since that is explicitly what they were ready to handle. (As was my point.)

Edit: More specifically: "We were prepared for one or two abominations, not the whole horde that descended upon us!"

thats depends what kind abomnation we have to deal pride demon he presents huge danger for city weaker demons when still powerful they are don't have such chances examples abomnation in codex entry where he is killed by squad of templars still he killed most of them and well meredith sister who was killed.

... I can only assume you think you just argued against my
point. Uh, no, the gameplay and story segregation was in the Warden not
having a remarkably slow, painful, and boring-to-play time climbing the
Tower through a horde of god-like supermonsters, instead having to deal
largely with ordinary demons and non-magic-wielding abominations.  

I don't quite understand.

Then you know how the rest of us feel when we try to make sense of your posts.

It isn't so hard i'm talking about that from the beginning and types of abomnations isn't new concept hm?

[Senya]

[quote]eluvianix wrote...

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...

[quote]almostinsane99 wrote...

[quote]eluvianix wrote...

[quote]almostinsane99 wrote...

True. I tend to argue the Templar side because I'm on no one's side, but the Mage side is the most popular, it seems.[/quote]

Really? I feel like the "Templar" side has a pretty decent following as well. 

[/quote]

I'm here sporadically, truthfully, but it seems that way here along with fanfiction.net.
[/quote]

What? You want me to write some pro templar fanfics? 

[/quote]

Don't worry. If I wanted someone to write one, I'd do it myself. It'd be rather interesting truthfully.

[AresKeith]

eluvianix wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

True. I tend to argue the Templar side because I'm on no one's side, but the Mage side is the most popular, it seems.

Really? I feel like the "Templar" side has a pretty decent following as well. 

It is, but one side seems to take things alittle too far

[Hellion Rex]

AresKeith wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

True. I tend to argue the Templar side because I'm on no one's side, but the Mage side is the most popular, it seems.

Really? I feel like the "Templar" side has a pretty decent following as well. 

It is, but one side seems to take things alittle too far

I don't disagree that there are most certainly mage extremists, but what I do take issue with is the assumption that there are only mage extremists. The templar arguers have their zealots as well. Both sides "take things a little too far".

Modifié par eluvianix, 17 octobre 2013 - 06:56 .

[Senya]

eluvianix wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

True. I tend to argue the Templar side because I'm on no one's side, but the Mage side is the most popular, it seems.

Really? I feel like the "Templar" side has a pretty decent following as well. 

It is, but one side seems to take things alittle too far

I don't disagree that there are most certainly mage extremists, but what I do take issue with is the assumption that there are only mage extremists. The templar arguers have their zealots as well. Both sides "take things a little too far".

That is very true. I've noticed a couple temlar extremists myself, though I won't name names. :innocent:

I'm personally looking for a way to fix the Circle in Inquisition.

[Hellion Rex]

almostinsane99 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

True. I tend to argue the Templar side because I'm on no one's side, but the Mage side is the most popular, it seems.

Really? I feel like the "Templar" side has a pretty decent following as well. 

It is, but one side seems to take things alittle too far

I don't disagree that there are most certainly mage extremists, but what I do take issue with is the assumption that there are only mage extremists. The templar arguers have their zealots as well. Both sides "take things a little too far".

That is very true. I've noticed a couple temlar extremists myself, though I won't name names. :innocent:

I'm personally looking for a way to fix the Circle in Inquisition.

I agree. I would advocate that most people, on either side, agree that the Circle in its current state is pretty much broken. Going back to the way things were would only end up in another rebellion. But the question is how to fix the Circles in a manner that both sides can agree upon together. Although Anders hated it, we need compromise to fix the problem.

[In Exile]

dragonflight288 wrote...
I may be pro-mage, but I major in English Writing and Literature at College, and for me, it has next to nothing to do with how right or wrong the Chantry is, but it's more an issue of story consistency. Were it never contradicted and lyrium never needed, then huzzah and all, and if Alistair never said it, then again there wouldn't have been an inconsistency and there wouldn't be a point theorizing having warriors trained in templar talents without the lyrium, as has been done in many fanfics, theories, and predictions of future games.

I don't see why unreliable narrator can't be in effect here. Even if we say that a templar does need to use some form of magic to use templar talents, it remains that Alistair and the Warden (and in DA2, Carver) were all GWs and infected with the taint. We have WOG that the taint allows for its own form of magic. 

So for all we know Warden templars use a different powersource. All of this coming back to unreliable narration from Alistair. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Because pro-mage tend to try and discredit the Chantry at every point.

We don't need to discredit the Chantry.  The Chantry has yet to advance a coherent argument on its own behalf.

Until it does, I intend to ignore its preferences.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

[quote]TheKomandorShepard wrote...

[quote]
Which is unfortunate for the Templars, since that is explicitly what they were ready to handle. (As was my point.)

Edit: More specifically: "We were prepared for one or two abominations, not the whole horde that descended upon us!"
[/quote]

thats depends what kind abomnation we have to deal pride demon he presents huge danger for city weaker demons when still powerful they are don't have such chances examples abomnation in codex entry where he is killed by squad of templars still he killed most of them and well meredith sister who was killed.[/quote]

We have from the devs that even a relatively weak abomination is dangerous, which is backed up by this quote. And even if there were no Pride demons or Senior Enchanters among the group of abominations, numbers will pay for a good deal. Since my original assertion was that a horde of abominations big enough that there's one cooresponding to every street was a no-win proposition, I think the problem of numbers is relevant.

[quote]
[quote]... I can only assume you think you just argued against my
point. Uh, no, the gameplay and story segregation was in the Warden not
having a remarkably slow, painful, and boring-to-play time climbing the
Tower through a horde of god-like supermonsters, instead having to deal
largely with ordinary demons and non-magic-wielding abominations.  
[/quote]
I don't quite understand.[/quote]

It's like the argument I'm making with the plot of DA2. The very basic stuff happened, presumably including the meeting with that repentent blood mage and the thing with Niall and the Sloth abomination. The part that isn't consistent with the greater rules of the setting (ie the abominations being so damn weak) is what didn't happen the way its shown.

[quote]
[quote]I'm using the parts they agree on, and the fact that the Chantry
would not praise mages as their main advantage if they could get away
with not doing so. It seems to me you're going to need an actual
argument if you want to brush both of those aside.
[/quote]

Well as chantry isn't completely full of peoples who hate mages some have own opinion and after help of mages they could have to do that well wynne ,mage warden , mage hawke after war  (battle in hawke case) chantry may not like it but they have to approve that.[/quote]

I have no idea what you're saying or how it answers my argument. I get your argument that not everyone in the Chantry hates mages, and you're correct there. Beyond that it just seems to me to be gibberish, though you seem to be trying to point to the fact that the Chantry adknowledged the roles powerful mages played in the games. If you had evidence that the Chantry lies to make mages look better than they really are, that would help that case. That is, after all, what you're claiming. Showing that the mages are given a fair shake in terms of history doesn't really help your point, since I'm arguing that they were given one in this case.

[quote]
[quote]Enough for the Joining, and probably enough to kill a whole
bunch of people. Why exactly is not having many strong mages an argument
for not fielding any mages?'
[/quote]
Rly how many mages we have in grey warden ranks?[/quote]

Among the current Wardens? They're relatively rare, but then mages are already a slim minority and we can assume not all mages survive the Joining. (A Mage PC describes it as "worse than the Harrowing," and not all mages survive that. Still, none of the people we know to have failed the Joining were mages, so there's that.) And for that matter the ratio of mage to mundane is a lot higher in the Wardens than in the general population.

[quote]
Because we have army of better peoples who want put down peoples so cost is war with them and bad reputation (if someone care about that) for few useful not worthy.  [/quote]

My entire argument is that's its a good idea to field the mages and the army.

[quote]
[quote]Mages could be trained to cope, but we probably won't have the
option. And your argument against placing them behind a row of soldiers?
(If salient?)
[/quote]
If we talk about averge mage argument is abomnations if we talk about stronger one ^[/quote]

I have absolutely no idea why a paucity of powerful mages seems to you like a valid argument for not using the ones that exist.

[quote]
[quote]A horde of abominations like the kind I'm picturing in DA2 would just tear the place and people apart. One abomination is essentially a natural disaster.

[/quote]

First ^
[/quote]

Answered.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 17 octobre 2013 - 09:13 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

In Exile wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
I may be pro-mage, but I major in English Writing and Literature at College, and for me, it has next to nothing to do with how right or wrong the Chantry is, but it's more an issue of story consistency. Were it never contradicted and lyrium never needed, then huzzah and all, and if Alistair never said it, then again there wouldn't have been an inconsistency and there wouldn't be a point theorizing having warriors trained in templar talents without the lyrium, as has been done in many fanfics, theories, and predictions of future games.

I don't see why unreliable narrator can't be in effect here. Even if we say that a templar does need to use some form of magic to use templar talents, it remains that Alistair and the Warden (and in DA2, Carver) were all GWs and infected with the taint. We have WOG that the taint allows for its own form of magic. 

So for all we know Warden templars use a different powersource. All of this coming back to unreliable narration from Alistair. 

Except that he apparently uses lyrium in the comics. Otherwise, I'd probably go with this theory.