Do you think the complaints about being forced to work for the Chantry or the templars via the Inquisition played a part in that? The WoT seemed to take great pains to depict it as a neutral organization, in contradiction to previously provided information.
I'm bored of the same conversation.
Coming to "uneven presentation". I was reading old forum and came across this: Written by Lob no less.
Making mage antagonists into one-dimensional caricatures who never made any sense failed to provide any depth to the dichotomy between mages and templars. If Decimus thinking Merrill is a templar or Quentin murdering Leandra because she's the identical twin of Quentin's late wife (a plot right out of a soap opera) are supposed to sway me, then the writers failed miserably.
Most "evil" mages were just dev's hard attempt to make them one which failed as hard as they tried.
True words 
We simply do no have enough information to claim that. We know that Inquisition hunted many mages and it was the chantry who suggested a better solution and it was after they found out they need the mages for disasters such as blights. Inquisition has its own share of violence prior to joining with Chantry and submitting to them.
When you say "I'm talking about when it was actually established." When do you mean? because it took a century to create circles worldwide and put down resistances. You imply it was all done in a short time which is false.
Er, if you read the codex history of the Circle system, that would be your source of relevant information? Actually making the international Circle system was a work of a century, but the origin of the Circle system itself tracks to a labor dispute between mages who didn't want to spend their magics just lighting candles and who decided to hole up up in the rafters, and a Divine who had to be talked down by her own Templars from calling an Exalted March on her own Cathedral.
The decision to trasnition from the pre-Circle system to the Circle system, the actual policy change, was very much done in a short period of time.
Debatable. The only source for info before WoT was a codex written by an unknown priest who's info was mostly conjecture based on rumor.Do you think the complaints about being forced to work for the Chantry or the templars via the Inquisition played a part in that? The WoT seemed to take great pains to depict it as a neutral organization, in contradiction to previously provided information.
Debatable. The only source for info before WoT was a codex written by an unknown priest who's info was mostly conjecture based on rumor.
The writers knew what they were doing when they left the organization's history a mystery and that they took into consideration the anti religious sentiment espoused by the vocal fandom on this board way back in 2012.
That. But no distractions or topic shifts from you as this what i'm getting at...You mean the anti-Chantry sentiment.
http://swooping-is-b...om/1286233.htmlDG: Yes. As a matter of fact the Templars were once all part of a group called the Inquisition. There was an Inquisition in Thedas. It existed around the time that the Chantry started to come to be. This was a time after the First Blight, after Andraste's March, when there was chaos everywhere, the Imperium had broken apart, you had the Old God cults, so a lot of blood magic. There was a lot of chaos, you had the cults of Andraste...and the Inquisition sort of arose as a group of people who said "Enough is enough, somebody has to do something about this magic that is tearing apart the world." And when the Chantry came to be they went to the Inquisition and said "Hey, we're of the same mind on this, why don't we pull together" and that's when the Inquisition turned into the Seekers and the Templar Order. They kind of merged. It'd be interesting to see if the Inquisition ever rose up again.
People still insist that tranquil can be abused. They don't have feelings..
They can be physically abused, just not emotionally abused.
People still insist that tranquil can be abused. They don't have feelings..
I usually agree with you but you cannot be serious with this.
It's their tears and despair. He feeds off those. (An old forumite joke.)I'm telling you, Elu, he has to be gaining power from all this crushing of dreams. That's probably why he's such a great writer, feeding on the sweet innocence and happiness of his consumers
It's their tears and despair. He feeds off those. (An old forumite joke.)
*Gaider drinking the tears of his fans* UGH, Mike, these tears taste of despair.
David Gaider wrote a volume about Anders' sexuality when male fans complained "OMG HE IS HITTING ON ME"
Actually, Mr.Gaider himself wrote an article on this issue on his Tumblr (i recommend to read it thoroughly):
I don’t think we’ve ever presented the idea of a mage revolution as being the best answer with an obviously good resolution. There are, however, a couple of things which complicate this.
First, the segregation between lore and gameplay. It’s something we’ve been trying to address, but ultimately a player mage (or the mages in the player’s party) don’t really encounter the same issues that mages at large do. They don’t get tricked or overtaken by demons, they don’t lose control of their powers or get tempted… or, when it’s a party member who does, some just assume it to be the result of rashness or stupidity. Which is not a completely unreasonable conclusion, considering the player mage never has those difficulties and can always opt out of such a situation by simple choice.
Could we force such difficulties on the player? We could, and perhaps it will come to that. That’s an issue of agency, however, which relates to gameplay. It’s the same reason that player Templars didn’t need to be addicted to lyrium, or how non-Warden party members in DAO happened to never contract the Blight despite repeated close encounters with darkspawn. Lucky them!
It’s something we’ve discussed (and are discussing), but the needs of gameplay aren’t easily dismissed— unless the story actually centers on the issue (as in the plot revolves around it, as in Asunder) it’s difficult to have issues like this meaningfully impact the player.
The second issue, however, is that notions of freedom are pretty deeply rooted in players— particularly those who live in western societies. We have the characters and world around the player espouse the issues and prejudices inherent in the conflict, but I suspect that even if we did have these things affect the player more personally the attitude among many would still default to freedom being good and oppression being bad. No matter what.
Is this a simplistic way of looking at it? Possibly. Part of the problem, in my mind, is how people equate this to issues of oppression in the real world— which is fine, as that’s an intended analogy, except that many appear to either forget or dismiss the differences. People in the real world don’t throw fireballs, accidentally turn into abominations, or make deals with demons. It’s more like a gun control issue— if there were people with guns that could go off and kill innocents by accident, and who couldn’t be disarmed without a lobotomy. The idea that society wouldn’t try to protect itself, even if incidents were statistically rare, ignores how society reacts to problems in the real world… even ones that don’t involve fireballs and abominations.
Why would they do that? Because mages aren’t guns, they’re people. And it’s far easier to sympathize with the jailed than the jailors— particularly when the cause of the jailors is fueled by righteousness. The fact the jailors’ attitude has an understandable cause doesn’t mean it’s likeable, or excuse the prejudices it has led to. One could say there are historical (and current) precedents in Thedas as to why mages being free would just lead to all sorts of badness… but not everyone pays heed to history. It could always be different this time.
Or could it? That’s the nature of the debate, both in-world and out.
I find it a bit strange that one of the most frequent questions I’m PM’d with is which side of the mage-templar issue I personally support. The answer, of course, is that I support neither… or, rather, I support both. I have to wrap my head around both sides, because if I can’t construct an argument to support a side that a rational person could make, then it’s not a very good argument. Thankfully I can, so there I stand.
I imagine many won’t believe that, preferring to believe I lean towards one side or the other— colored by their own preferences, just as those preferences color how they look on the arguments of others. And that’s fine.
I look forward to showing what we’re doing in Inquisition— though if one were to assume that the entire story of Inquisition revolves around “the mage-templar issue”, they would be incorrect. It’s a big piece (as one would rightly expect), but there’s far more going on. Just FYI.
Direct link - http://tmblr.co/ZIsNntw8raX-
*giggles* Indeed! And you just reminded me of something... hold on...*runs off**Gaider drinking the tears of his fans* UGH, Mike, these tears taste of despair.
I usually agree with you but you cannot be serious with this.
They are like husks, even pets have more sense of self tbh.
Thank you for sharing! Such an interesting read!Actually, Mr.Gaider himself wrote an article on this issue on his Tumblr (i recommend to read it thoroughly)
They are like husks, even pets have more sense of self tbh.
Except they're not
Except they're not
Maybe not.. Its hard for me to understand sometimes, the concepts emotions and rationality in DA are different from the real world.
I'd also venture that it seems that emotion is not absolutely removed. It seems to be greatly muffled, but not entirely.Maybe not.. Its hard for me to understand sometimes, the concepts emotions and rationality in DA are different from the real world.
They are like husks, even pets have more sense of self tbh.
So they can't be physically abused?
Tranquility again.
The Pro-Temps want to dress them up as if they're Pinocchio, when it is obvious that they're just puppets on strings.
They have free will, they rarely exercise it.
They cannot emotionally feel.
They are susceptible to abuse, though they've had their humanity stripped from them.
They are the true face of the Circle system. I will not argue this. I've seen the rebuttals and I disagree with all of them.
What would you think if the Mage Rebellion, during or after the war, will continue to use Tranquility?Tranquility again.
The Pro-Temps want to dress them up as if they're Pinocchio, when it is obvious that they're just puppets on strings.
They have free will, they rarely exercise it.
They cannot emotionally feel.
They are susceptible to abuse, though they've had their humanity stripped from them.
They are the true face of the Circle system. I will not argue this. I've seen the rebuttals and I disagree with all of them.
So they can't be physically abused?
People kinda physically abuse things that are not too emotional about it, like plants or insects.
People kinda physically abuse things that are not too emotional about it, like plants or insects.
So now you're comparing a human to a plant. Got it. I'm just gonna walk away from this one.
Tranquility again.
The Pro-Temps want to dress them up as if they're Pinocchio, when it is obvious that they're just puppets on strings.
They have free will, they rarely exercise it.
They cannot emotionally feel.
They are susceptible to abuse, though they've had their humanity stripped from them.
They are the true face of the Circle system. I will not argue this. I've seen the rebuttals and I disagree with all of them.
Ok?
What would you think if the Mage Rebellion, during or after the war, will continue to use Tranquility?
Well then it's time to go after the mages. Tranquility should be reserved for only the most heinous of individuals, and those who volunteer. Not used as a weapon to bludgeon mages into submission and trot them about as implicit threats.
Ok?
Huh?
Retour en haut
