1420 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

cjones91 wrote...


I don't believe making one side completely evil is suddenly going to sway those on either side of the Mage-Templar debate.They are more likely to accuse Bioware of pandering to the other group if theirs is painted as evil monsters.

I'm not saying that BioWare will do this, or that it will be handled or recieved well, it just seems to me that they don't really care for the pro-mage sentiment, and I think some recent threads on BSN show that.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

We already knew the Quarians struck first. That part wasn't new information that painted the situation all that different to me.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 24 octobre 2013 - 02:29 .

[Silfren]

Joy Divison wrote...

WillPF363 wrote...

@Joy Division- Two things:

1.Mages aren't free to go to conferences etc., they're allowed to go. Sometimes. Being allowed to ask to travel is not the same as freedom to travel.

2.Not all slavery in history and around the world looked like slavery in antebellum America. Slaves in Ancient Greece and Rome were sometimes highly educated and entrusted with educating the children of their masters. There were also laws about how slaves could be treated. It seems similar to how mages are kept in Thedas to me. Except Roman slaves were allowed to save money to buy their freedom, mages are stuck for life.

1. Right, which is why I said "free to gain permission," i.e. they are allowed to ask for travel.

2. Right, but as antebellum American slavery is the most familiar image of slavery, it serves as the most useful frame of reference.  Also, while it is true we can find more benevolent versions and examples of slavery in the historical record, I'm not sure it's appropriate to use that as a baseline standard for slavery.  When the word "slavery" is thrown around, the person using it might not mean specifically antebellum American slavery, but they are referring to something comparably *bad*.  Even if they are theoretically correct that a few forms of historically slavery is analgous to the Circle, as it is not representative of the institution of slavery as the vast majority of slaves in human history suffered far worse fates than what the Mages do. I do not find it useful to use the same term to describe the chattel form of slavery in antebellum America and the Circle of Magi.

The people equating the Circles to slavery are not the ones restricting the definition thereof to the antebellum South, though.  That tactic is being employed exclusively by people trying to discredit the idea.  You yourself say that you don't find it useful to use the same term to describe chattel slavery as used in America, for the Circles...but you're the one doing it, not us (us being those who agree with the slavery application).  We are not saying that we're equating it to antebellum slavery, we are saying it is slavery, period.  It is not our problem that other people continue to insist on that form of slavery, and that alone, for comparison, even after the rest of us point out that it is NOT the form we were referencing.

Slavery is bad, regardless of "benevolent" a particular system of it may be.  I am certainly not looking for "benign" examples of it in order to create some baseline definition.  I am using ownership as the definition.  I do not think it can be reasonably argued that the mages are not forced into a relationship wherein the Chantry owns them for all intents and purposes.  They do NOT have freedom of movement, they do NOT have the right to marriage, they do NOT have the right to see their families. They are only ever ALLOWED these things, according to the whim of the people who oversee them.  There is a HUGE difference here, between what a person is free to do, and what they may seek to be permitted to do.  

As I said upthread, the Chantry has given itself divine right over mages.  Cullen says this himself, which I point out because he is so often held up as a model of a moderate Templar (which is something I personally dispute).  We see this in any case where templars believe they have the right to harrass Dalish clans for their mages, or when mages like Aneirin are brutalized and left for dead, even when there is no indication that the templars didn't have the means of simply restraining him and bringing him back to the Circle.  Any time the templars can act this way without fear of reprisal...and this happened in one of the better Circles.

Modifié par Silfren, 24 octobre 2013 - 02:34 .

[Steelcan]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

We already knew the Quarians struck first. That part wasn't new information that painted the situation all that different to me.

Yes but the quarians killing dissidents and such and the geth "sparing" the last quarians were clear attempts to imbue sympathy for the geth.

[cjones91]

Steelcan wrote...

cjones91 wrote...


I don't believe making one side completely evil is suddenly going to sway those on either side of the Mage-Templar debate.They are more likely to accuse Bioware of pandering to the other group if theirs is painted as evil monsters.

I'm not saying that BioWare will do this, or that it will be handled or recieved well, it just seems to me that they don't really care for the pro-mage sentiment, and I think some recent threads on BSN show that.

I don't think anyone at Bioware is in one camp or the other,they mostly see the whole thing as a gray issue.

[Br3admax]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

We already knew the Quarians struck first. That part wasn't new information that painted the situation all that different to me.

Because that is the only thing presented in the consensus and it had not logical flaws at all. 

[Steelcan]

cjones91 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

cjones91 wrote...


I don't believe making one side completely evil is suddenly going to sway those on either side of the Mage-Templar debate.They are more likely to accuse Bioware of pandering to the other group if theirs is painted as evil monsters.

I'm not saying that BioWare will do this, or that it will be handled or recieved well, it just seems to me that they don't really care for the pro-mage sentiment, and I think some recent threads on BSN show that.

I don't think anyone at Bioware is in one camp or the other,they mostly see the whole thing as a gray issue.

And thats the issue, right now it isn't a very grey issue.  You have the brutal oppressive templars driving innocent mages to horrible acts in self defense.

That seems to be a pretty vocal opinion voiced by many on this forum.

And BioWare doesn't seem too keen on it

Modifié par Steelcan, 24 octobre 2013 - 02:33 .

[Br3admax]

cjones91 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

cjones91 wrote...


I don't believe making one side completely evil is suddenly going to sway those on either side of the Mage-Templar debate.They are more likely to accuse Bioware of pandering to the other group if theirs is painted as evil monsters.

I'm not saying that BioWare will do this, or that it will be handled or recieved well, it just seems to me that they don't really care for the pro-mage sentiment, and I think some recent threads on BSN show that.

I don't think anyone at Bioware is in one camp or the other,they mostly see the whole thing as a gray issue.

It's not a gray issue. This is a case of "both sides are idiotic, pick which one you think is less idiotic."

[d-boy15]

Steelcan wrote...
Yet despite all that blood magic (which I don't personally see much issue with) people still seem to sympathize with them more.

I'm not surprise, they put a big mages supporter as party member and romancable characters. Player always heard
mages opinion but rarely from templar.

[cjones91]

Steelcan wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

We already knew the Quarians struck first. That part wasn't new information that painted the situation all that different to me.

Yes but the quarians killing dissidents and such and the geth "sparing" the last quarians were clear attempts to imbue sympathy for the geth.

The geth were already gaining sympathy when ME2 rolled around,anyway we should stay on topic.

[Steelcan]

cjones91 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

We already knew the Quarians struck first. That part wasn't new information that painted the situation all that different to me.

Yes but the quarians killing dissidents and such and the geth "sparing" the last quarians were clear attempts to imbue sympathy for the geth.

The geth were already gaining sympathy when ME2 rolled around,anyway we should stay on topic.

Just to put the cap on this, yes they were getting more sympathetic with legion, but he wasn't a mandatory squadmate and much of his content isn't seen by most people.

While the consensus mission is also optional just about everyone played it.

[cjones91]

Br3ad wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

cjones91 wrote...


I don't believe making one side completely evil is suddenly going to sway those on either side of the Mage-Templar debate.They are more likely to accuse Bioware of pandering to the other group if theirs is painted as evil monsters.

I'm not saying that BioWare will do this, or that it will be handled or recieved well, it just seems to me that they don't really care for the pro-mage sentiment, and I think some recent threads on BSN show that.

I don't think anyone at Bioware is in one camp or the other,they mostly see the whole thing as a gray issue.

It's not a gray issue. This is a case of "both sides are idiotic, pick which one you think is less idiotic."

Both sides have their faults and positive attributes,Bioware had already said a repeat of DA2 won't happen so I expect both sides will be shown in a negative/positive light.

[LobselVith8]

Steelcan wrote...

I get the feeling we will actually see some sympathetic sides to the Chantry and Templars. The devs seem disappointed in the pro-mage side of the argument and want to show just how dangerous mages are.

However if they do this just by "all mages are blood mages" it will probably back fire.

I'm not certain how successful that would be. I think most people have already made a choice regarding which side they think is right. I doubt Inquisiton is going to persuade the pro-templar fans to side the mages who want autonomy from the Chantry, and vice versa.

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I get the feeling we will actually see some sympathetic sides to the Chantry and Templars. The devs seem disappointed in the pro-mage side of the argument and want to show just how dangerous mages are.

However if they do this just by "all mages are blood mages" it will probably back fire.

Then they better do the same to the templars just to make things fair.Forcing one side to be evil won't work.

Why not?  We've already seen both sides at their worst supposedly, and I'd say right now, at least on BSN, more people are pro-mage.

This doesn't seem to be meshing with what BioWare wanted DA2 to show so they will have to rectify it.

Like in ME3, everything before the Consensus Mission showed the geth as at best repentant killers, then came that mission and all of a sudden theya re tragically misunderstood victims....  I wonder if the mission had been cut or shown quarians being slaughtered wholesale how things might turn out.

Given how Asunder is written, I frankly doubt it. The more sympathetic Chantry characters were the ones who were relatively pro-mage, after all. The templars are the wrong side of the argument, it's fairly clear; I think this is the point of the Red Templar faction, just making it blunt and easy like Cerberus.

[Angrywolves]

Arguing about slavery ?
Whatever.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

The fact that the geth neglected to mention their atrocities against the Quarians did not make me think they did not happen. I already knew the crimes of both sides.

When it comes to mages and templars, I do think that making sympathetic examples of each is a better choice than demonizing the other side, and both mages and templars certainly have potential opportunities to be portrayed as having good reasons to want to do what they do.

Maybe for example if there had been a Thrask that had been more focused on his duty and less clueless about the company he keeps.

The other thing is the situation Bioware presents us with should be neutral if they want a hard decision. The specific choice of chooisng Meredith or Orsino in the end was too easy. And didn't really have much to do with what I felt the larger issue between mages and templars was.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 24 octobre 2013 - 02:42 .

[Br3admax]

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I get the feeling we will actually see some sympathetic sides to the Chantry and Templars. The devs seem disappointed in the pro-mage side of the argument and want to show just how dangerous mages are.

However if they do this just by "all mages are blood mages" it will probably back fire.

Then they better do the same to the templars just to make things fair.Forcing one side to be evil won't work.

Why not?  We've already seen both sides at their worst supposedly, and I'd say right now, at least on BSN, more people are pro-mage.

This doesn't seem to be meshing with what BioWare wanted DA2 to show so they will have to rectify it.

Like in ME3, everything before the Consensus Mission showed the geth as at best repentant killers, then came that mission and all of a sudden theya re tragically misunderstood victims....  I wonder if the mission had been cut or shown quarians being slaughtered wholesale how things might turn out.

Given how Asunder is written, I frankly doubt it. The more sympathetic Chantry characters were the ones who were relatively pro-mage, after all. The templars are the wrong side of the argument, it's fairly clear; I think this is the point of the Red Templar faction, just making it blunt and easy like Cerberus.

You could at least pretend to be subtle when making obvious mockery. 

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I get the feeling we will actually see some sympathetic sides to the Chantry and Templars. The devs seem disappointed in the pro-mage side of the argument and want to show just how dangerous mages are.

However if they do this just by "all mages are blood mages" it will probably back fire.

Then they better do the same to the templars just to make things fair.Forcing one side to be evil won't work.

Why not?  We've already seen both sides at their worst supposedly, and I'd say right now, at least on BSN, more people are pro-mage.

This doesn't seem to be meshing with what BioWare wanted DA2 to show so they will have to rectify it.

Like in ME3, everything before the Consensus Mission showed the geth as at best repentant killers, then came that mission and all of a sudden theya re tragically misunderstood victims....  I wonder if the mission had been cut or shown quarians being slaughtered wholesale how things might turn out.

Given how Asunder is written, I frankly doubt it. The more sympathetic Chantry characters were the ones who were relatively pro-mage, after all. The templars are the wrong side of the argument, it's fairly clear; I think this is the point of the Red Templar faction, just making it blunt and easy like Cerberus.

I'd ask for clarification but I don't really feel like listening to your "BioWare always picks what I say is right so its right" spiel.

Also there are still some of us who say Cerberus had the right idea as you are well aware.

Modifié par Steelcan, 24 octobre 2013 - 02:44 .

[Steelcan]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

The fact that the geth neglected to mention their atrocities against the Quarians did not make me think they did not happen. I already knew the crimes of both sides.

When it comes to mages and templars, I do think that making sympathetic examples of each is a better choice than demonizing the other side, and both mages and templars certainly have potential opportunities to be portrayed as having good reasons to want to do what they do.

Maybe for example if there had been a Thrask that had been more focused on his duty and less clueless about the company he keeps.

The other thing is the situation Bioware presents us with should be neutral if they want a hard decision. The specific choice of chooisng Meredith or Orsino in the end was too easy. And didn't really have much to do with what I felt the larger issue between mages and templars was.

Its the fact that it isnt shown, actually seeing things happen is more sympathy building than hearing about it.

I'll agree to ther est of your post though.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

If the Templars are supposed to be like Cerberus, why would there need to create a splinter faction called Red Templars anyway? If Templars are "supposed to be the bad guys" then the enemy could just be called "Templars" in DAI.

[LobselVith8]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

The fact that the geth neglected to mention their atrocities against the Quarians did not make me think they did not happen. I already knew the crimes of both sides.

When it comes to mages and templars, I do think that making sympathetic examples of each is a better choice than demonizing the other side, and both mages and templars certainly have potential opportunities to be portrayed as having good reasons to want to do what they do. 

I agree. Three-dimensional characters are more compelling than one-dimensional caricatures.

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Maybe for example if there had been a Thrask that had been more focused on his duty and less clueless about the company he keeps.

I don't blame Thrask for Grace's plot induced stupidity, and being angry at my Champion for helping her. Thrask had a lot of potential, and it was squandered for an asinine plot.

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

The other thing is the situation Bioware presents us with should be neutral if they want a hard decision. The specific choice of chooisng Meredith or Orsino in the end was too easy. And didn't really have much to do with what I felt the larger issue between mages and templars was. 

I agree, in the sense that you could oppose Meredith without being pro-mage, even though the game couldn't recognize this.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 24 octobre 2013 - 02:48 .

[Xilizhra]

I'd ask for clarification but I don't really feel like listening to your "BioWare always picks what I say is right so its right" spiel.

Justinia and Evangeline are the faces of the Chantry's sympathetic side, one of whom is trying to improve things for mages and the other of whom actually joins Rhys' rebellion. And Adrian, while on the extreme side, is still presented more favorably than Lambert (Fiona doesn't come across badly either). It's certainly true that they're likely to show us more sympathetic characters on the Chantry/templar side... but they'll be sympathetic because they'll be working for a better future and will want to end the war for mutual benefit, akin to the sympathetic characters in the geth/quarian conflict.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'd ask for clarification but I don't really feel like listening to your "BioWare always picks what I say is right so its right" spiel.

Justinia and Evangeline are the faces of the Chantry's sympathetic side, one of whom is trying to improve things for mages and the other of whom actually joins Rhys' rebellion. And Adrian, while on the extreme side, is still presented more favorably than Lambert (Fiona doesn't come across badly either). It's certainly true that they're likely to show us more sympathetic characters on the Chantry/templar side... but they'll be sympathetic because they'll be working for a better future and will want to end the war for mutual benefit, akin to the sympathetic characters in the geth/quarian conflict.

Yet there is always pesky things like "prior canon" and "interpretation"....

For example care to guess which admirals on the Quarian Admiralty I sympathize with more?




If you guessed Space Loghain and Space Morrigan you win..... I got nothing, have a cookie and say its from yours truly.

[Joy Divison]

Silfren wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Newsflash: We are not wrong simply because you declare it so.

No. You are wrong because you aren't right. You try to stick a term to a situation, where it simply doesn't fit. that makes you wrong.

Except it does fit, and rather well.  The Circle system can and does fit into real world models of slavery. 

As a black man...I REALLY, REALLY hate when people try to equate the circle system with SLAVERY.

House arrest..sure. I have no problem with.

Actual slavery though? I honestly think you're trivalizing the word. 

I don't think I am, though, for the primary reason being, again, that I am NOT referencing the U.S. model of slavery in order to reach my conclusion.  I don't think I'm trivializing it at all, I think I'm acknowledging that there's more to slavery than forced labor alone.  Slavery isn't about forced labor so much as ownership, and since the Chantry for all intents and purposes has divine right over mages' lives, well there you go.

What you fail to understand is that some words are highly symbolic and mean different things to different people.  Just because you don't think or don't intend to use a word in a certain matter does not mean how that word will be interpreted.

Is it really hard to understand that for a black American, the equation of the comfy lives the Mages live at the Circle makes a mockery of their perspective of what the word slavery entails?  It absolutely does.  Some historical experiences are more than dates and facts to certain groups/ethnicities/nationalities.  They just are.  Recognize it, accept it, and respect it.

This doesn't make you wrong about slavery.  But because the word slavery has come to mean so much more than a dictionary definition, I am more inclined to respect the imagry the word conjures for so many people than belittle those images and argue what's technically correct.

That is why I am uncomfortable with calling what the Circle Mages go through slavery.  I don't care if it is analgous to what happened in a specific period of Rome (and even then people fail to mention these "slaves" were in the minority and forunate to be domestic servants or skilled) or some Polynesian paradise before grubby British explorers ruined it.  Most slaves in human history endured *FAR* more misery, suffering, humiliation, and depravities than what happens at the Circle of Magi.  Applying the same term is ridiculous.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 24 octobre 2013 - 02:53 .

[Joy Divison]

Silfren wrote...

The people equating the Circles to slavery are not the ones restricting the definition thereof to the antebellum South, though.  That tactic is being employed exclusively by people trying to discredit the idea.  You yourself say that you don't find it useful to use the same term to describe chattel slavery as used in America, for the Circles...but you're the one doing it, not us (us being those who agree with the slavery application).  We are not saying that we're equating it to antebellum slavery, we are saying it is slavery, period.  It is not our problem that other people continue to insist on that form of slavery, and that alone, for comparison, even after the rest of us point out that it is NOT the form we were referencing.

You keep saying this as if you repeat yourself enough times eventually people are going to change the imagery and symbolism associated with the word slavery.  I know you are not restricting the definition to the antebellum South.  I am trying to tell you the reason you are encountering resistance is because it is not useful to use the word slavery in the dictionary since because in 21st century discourse, the word has come to mean so much more to many people.  You might think flying the Stars and Bars confederate flag outside you house is an expression of state pride, or an acknowledgment of your family's past, or maybe you just think it looks really cool.  And you would be right.  But some folks might have a more restrictive definition though, no?  I'd imagine that even though they would be technically wrong, you'd still abide by their wishes, yes?

Modifié par Joy Divison, 24 octobre 2013 - 05:56 .