8640 réponses à ce sujet

[Jaison1986]

Well, it's just wait and see. What if gregoir got addled in these 10 years gap? What if this was just overlooked by the devs? Retcons are not uncommon in the Dragon age series after all. But so far lore states that prolonged use of lyrium cause the user to become addled, and if they quit before that can happen, they suffer serious cases of withdrawals. Unless this gets retconed too.

[Jaison1986]

hhh89 wrote...

Jaison1986 wrote...

I'm not defending the Arishok. I actually find what he did wrong. The problem is that you are ignoring the reason of why he did what he did. You act as if all the provocations made against the Qunari are something to be ignored as if they just were an harmless mistake, and when the Arishok finally responds he is an fool. That is an extremelly one sided statement.

Who are you responding to? Me or Lotion?

Lotion, I didn't even saw your post.

[The Elder King]

Jaison1986 wrote...

Well, it's just wait and see. What if gregoir got addled in these 10 years gap? What if this was just overlooked by the devs? Retcons are not uncommon in the Dragon age series after all. But so far lore states that prolonged use of lyrium cause the user to become addled, and if they quit before that can happen, they suffer serious cases of withdrawals. Unless this gets retconed too.

Yes. Templars are addicted to  lyrium and if they're cut off from it they suffer from withdrawals. Although I don't see anything in the lore that stated that prolonged effects of lyrium surely cause templars to become addled or retarded. It' a possibility, that surely increase over time, but not a sure thing. Carroll is confused and he seems fairly young.

[durasteel]

Starsyn wrote...
If there is any real world approximation to Dragon Age, 50 is certainly getting up there. In a day and age without modern medicine, indoor plumbing or electricity, 50 was getting long in the tooth. We can't know for sure at this point; BioWare seems actually pretty reluctant to release ages on any major NPC or most of the companions.

I can agree that Gregoir seemed sound of mind and body, overall. No crazier or addled than any other major NPC in Origins. It goes back to my original thought: Kirkwall was supposed to show the absolute worst in both mages and templars. It sure succeeded on that and that's why more narrative balance is pretty crucial going forward.

Historical sidebar: Actually, "average life expectancy" in the Middle Ages might make it seem like people didn't live well into old age, but that's not the case. The LE numbers are skewed heavily by high infant mortality, by the relatively more fatal nature of childhood accidents, and by death on the battlefield for young-ish adults. If you lived to see 40, however, it was not uncommon to live to see 70 or more.

Also, you can hardly use one example (Greagoir) to disprove a general trend. We all know that heroin use over time generally has some pretty serious effects, but I can think of a few musicians who spend what seems like half their time in rehab and still seem to be going strong, speaking more-or-less coherently, etc.

[durasteel]

If you're gonna claim that the entire Templar training conversation with Alistair has been retconned, I'm gonna need a link. That's too big a deal to just take someone's interpretation as accurate, I need the Gaiderism itself.

[durasteel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Common misconception. Learn a bit of history.
The Church was never in command of the armies. The Church would call for the Crusades and gave an objective. People would answer and go about completing in their own way.

Kings would raise an army and volonteers would join in. But it was not the pope or the priest who led that army. It was the kings and generals. And if they decided to sack a town on the way to their objective or if they decided to kill everyone, ti was their command, not the churches.

That's just wrong. It is completely wrong.

The crusader armies were not just raised by Kings, they were raised by the church. Ecclesiastical courts would pardon any offense if the accused or convict would join the crusade. Indulgences were granted, debts forgiven. The clergy would preach the Crusade, inciting the common folk to join the crusade as their duty to God. The nobility were promised land, titles, and power for their second sons in the new kingdoms the Church would decree in the Holy Land.

Furthermore, the Crusades were initiated by the Church itself. Its dogma dehumanized the Saracens and Byzantines, driving the Crusaders to commit atrocities beyond imagining. The Crusader armies were under the military command of kings like Richard I, but the Crusade itself was lead by a papal legate like Adhémar of Monteil. The bloodbath was blessed.

To say that the slaughter of the Crusades cannot be blamed on the Church is like saying you can't pin the World Trade Center attack on OBL. It's patently ridiculous. Before you go trying to school us in history, you should learn it. I promise you that the writers on the Dragon Age team have done their homework, because the institutions of Thedas consistently hit their marks when it comes to association with European history, and it really provides excellent context for understanding what's going on in the fictional world.

[Lotion Soronarr]

durasteel wrote...
That's just wrong. It is completely wrong.

Nope, you are.

The crusader armies were not just raised by Kings, they were raised by the church. Ecclesiastical courts would pardon any offense if the accused or convict would join the crusade. Indulgences were granted, debts forgiven. The clergy would preach the Crusade, inciting the common folk to join the crusade as their duty to God. The nobility were promised land, titles, and power for their second sons in the new kingdoms the Church would decree in the Holy Land.

And? The Church called for and provided incentive.
But it didn't command. That was my point.
The Pope didn't marchat the head of the army and issue orders.
There was always a power/influence struggle betwen kings/nobles and the Church.
If you don't belive me ask King Henry. The notion that the Church could command everyone as they please is a false one.

Furthermore, the Crusades were initiated by the Church itself. Its dogma dehumanized the Saracens and Byzantines, driving the Crusaders to commit atrocities beyond imagining. The Crusader armies were under the military command of kings like Richard I, but the Crusade itself was lead by a papal legate like Adhémar of Monteil. The bloodbath was blessed.

War tends to dehumanize the enemy. Crusades aren't different from other wars before or after.
They were a defense of ones ways of life, belifes and customs - something one has a right to defend. And it was not paranoia, given that 4 christian kingdoms fell.

Military command.
That's the key word. Papal legates and priests were nothing more than advisors, they could not order the kings or their armies to do  whatever they want.

To say that the slaughter of the Crusades cannot be blamed on the Church is like saying you can't pin the World Trade Center attack on OBL. It's patently ridiculous. Before you go trying to school us in history, you should learn it.

Blame is a funny thing. It keeps getting throw around on targets of opportunity. The interests of nobles and kings, desires for power and land, greed and desperation, propaganda and necessity - these drive a war. Any war.

History isn't as simple as you want it to be - any true student of history would know that.
So take your own advice.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Jaison1986 wrote...

I'm not defending the Arishok. I actually find what he did wrong. The problem is that you are ignoring the reason of why he did what he did. You act as if all the provocations made against the Qunari are something to be ignored as if they just were an harmless mistake, and when the Arishok finally responds he is an fool. That is an extremelly one sided statement.

The Arishoks response was one of a fool. Starting a war? For what?

It is irrelevant if there were provocations when you strike the wrong target.
Are you telling me the Viscount provoked him?

[KaiserShep]

It was basically of religious fanatics. I mean, while Isabela has plenty of blame, it was basically an attack on an entire city for a stupid book and to deal with its corruption. If you have Fenris in your group at the time, he will say that the Arishok is gathering the most important people in the city to force them to convert or die.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 20 février 2014 - 03:12 .

[Insaner Robot]

durasteel wrote...

If you're gonna claim that the entire Templar training conversation with Alistair has been retconned, I'm gonna need a link. That's too big a deal to just take someone's interpretation as accurate, I need the Gaiderism itself.

Sorry for just jumping in on this, but here you go.

swooping-is-bad.livejournal.com/1286233.html

Interview from January 2012.

And the specific paragraph:

DG: I would say that they are magic, they derive from lyrium, which is magic. The tricky thing there is that the Chantry is awfully hypocritical when it comes to magic, in that there are sorts of magic that they will use. Actually I should take that back, it's not necessarily that they're hypocritical, they don't have anything against magic itself. Magic can be useful, they know the mages are useful. It's the elements of possession and blood magic, all the forbidden magic where things get really dicey. Even if Templar magic was recognized as spellcasting, it's not innate to the Templars, if they just stopped taking lyrium eventually they would lose the ability. Although as Alistair proves, they can use the ability for a long time afterwards. I think part of that was just the requirements of gameplay, for us to have a specialization as well, so some of that story doesn't quite match up with the gameplay, and I think eventually we'd like to work the lyrium requirement back into the gameplay as well. Regardless the magic the Templars use doesn't involve mind control, it's not forbidden magic, there's nothing about it--especially since it can only against mages--there's nothing about it that would make the Chantry step in and go "Wow, that's bad." But then we're talking about a Chantry that also has phylacteries in every Circle, which is a type of blood magic, so there's definitely an element of hypocrisy there.

Seems it's not so much a retcon as gameplay/story segregation.

[Mistic]

Insaner Robot wrote...

Sorry for just jumping in on this, but here you go.

swooping-is-bad.livejournal.com/1286233.html

Interview from January 2012.

And the specific paragraph:

DG: I would say that they are magic, they derive from lyrium, which is magic. The tricky thing there is that the Chantry is awfully hypocritical when it comes to magic, in that there are sorts of magic that they will use. Actually I should take that back, it's not necessarily that they're hypocritical, they don't have anything against magic itself. Magic can be useful, they know the mages are useful. It's the elements of possession and blood magic, all the forbidden magic where things get really dicey. Even if Templar magic was recognized as spellcasting, it's not innate to the Templars, if they just stopped taking lyrium eventually they would lose the ability. Although as Alistair proves, they can use the ability for a long time afterwards. I think part of that was just the requirements of gameplay, for us to have a specialization as well, so some of that story doesn't quite match up with the gameplay, and I think eventually we'd like to work the lyrium requirement back into the gameplay as well. Regardless the magic the Templars use doesn't involve mind control, it's not forbidden magic, there's nothing about it--especially since it can only against mages--there's nothing about it that would make the Chantry step in and go "Wow, that's bad." But then we're talking about a Chantry that also has phylacteries in every Circle, which is a type of blood magic, so there's definitely an element of hypocrisy there.

Seems it's not so much a retcon as gameplay/story segregation.

Thank you very much! I wanted to read this.

So it's a light retcon. Alistair could use templar talents without drinking lyrium in DA:O because he already trained before with lyrium. The effects would wear off sooner or later, but still much, much, much later than usual in the Templar Order (according to Asunder, the withdrawal effects start appearing after the first week; then, in a month or two the templar goes insane).

[durasteel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

History isn't as simple as you want it to be - any true student of history would know that.
So take your own advice.

I think maybe you need to read up a little more on the Crusades, amigo. History is almost never simple, but your efforts to downplay the role of the Church in the instigation and direction of the Crusades seems to be a clear effort to oversimplify. While it is true that no one person had absolute control over the Crusader armies, the Papal Legate was the leader of the Crusade, not the nobles who served as its generals. The Kingdoms of Jerusalem and Acre were vassals of the Holy See and at times directly under the control of a "Latin Patriarch" as a theocracy under the Pope in Rome.

Yes, power changed hands often in the Crusader states, but everyone always derived their authority, at least nominally, from the Pope.

In all seriousness, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you suggesting that the Chantry is not responsible for the atorocities of its army in Rivain? That the Templars and Seekers it trained, under the commanders appointed by the authority of the Divine, went so far "off the reservation" in prosecuting military actions against those the Chantry had identified as heretics that no fault should rest with the institution itself? Because if that's where you're trying to go with this, you ain't gonna get there.

[durasteel]

Insaner Robot wrote...

Sorry for just jumping in on this, but here you go.

swooping-is-bad.livejournal.com/1286233.html

Interview from January 2012.

Thanks, I really appreciate that. Not only does he talk about the lyrium and Templar magic, he also identifies the phylacteries as blood magic, which is interesting to me because I had previously "dismissed that claim."

[wcholcombe]

Ok, 8 pages later we are still arguing largely the same points except now we have left the dalish behind for the Qunari.

2 points I will try and interject into the discussion(that ya'll will probably largely ignore anyway)

1) I actually feel that in the beginning the Cicles/Templar relationship was more cooperative. At some point it started skewing heavily to a more antagonistic relationship. Even in DAO Gregoire and the HE had a much better relationship than in DA2. Also, prior to the head seeker showing up in Asunder, it sounds like the KC of the tower in Orlais was much more moderate towards mages. I think we are allowing a lot of DA2 and Asunder to cloud our views as to what life in the Circles has been like for the majority of their existence. Rhys's recollections in Asunder support this, the general attitude of the circle templars and mages in DAO supports this-Yes they wanted to call for right of Annulment, but seriously did you play the game? The tower was fallen, legally Gregoire was required to do so. I still maintane that the mage from Stolen Throne who owned Shale was not quite the outlier he is presented as, along with Wynne. I think prior to the recent troubles, master mages were given a fairly large amount of freedom to travel outside the circles.

2) The biggest issue with the circles is quite obviously the atagonistic attitude between some templars and some mages. There is a serious need for a 3rd party to handle issues. If you had a 3rd person in a tower who made a tribunal with the KC and the HE who was from niether group, I think it would allow for the airing and handling of grevances against both Templars and Mages. It would be healthier for all involved. The problem would be selecting that 3rd middle party.

Random minutea I have decided to add:
1) Another example of mages behaving badly--The Calling. The circle in Ferelden-or at least its leadership- was basically going to help the DS take over the world.
2) The idea that the mage vs. templar debate can't be handled evenly is laughable. The developers just need to take an even handed approach to possession and abominations. They need to demonstrate the dangers of Blood Magic, including to PCs. I am sorry but their needs to be an in game price that fits with the lore for using blood magic. Even if it simply means that you eventually start sucking life from your comrades in battle automatically, they need to demonstrate that price and temptation. They also need to demonstrate better the dangers of Abominations. I think in DAO they did a good job with Redcliff--he literally killed hundreds of people in that village, in DA2 they were just largely a tougher monster--especially sense most people refuse to see Anders as an abomination. I would have preferred an Abomination got away from the circle and went on a rampage that you had to hunt down to better demonstrate the danger. That is the primary issue with not have the templars viewed as sympathetic, along with the fact that the majority of them we interact with in DA2 are dogmatic serial killers, they never pull off an effective way of demonstrating the danger of mages that doesn't come off as kind of silly.

[durasteel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Blame is a funny thing. It keeps getting throw around on targets of opportunity. The interests of nobles and kings, desires for power and land, greed and desperation, propaganda and necessity - these drive a war. Any war.

What a coincidence, these are the same motivations that drive most of history's organised religions.

[wcholcombe]

durasteel wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Blame is a funny thing. It keeps getting throw around on targets of opportunity. The interests of nobles and kings, desires for power and land, greed and desperation, propaganda and necessity - these drive a war. Any war.

What a coincidence, these are the same motivations that drive most of history's organised religions.

Ok, I have to take issue with that.  There may be people at the higher levels of organized religion that operate under that mantra, but any organized faith--Christainity, Hindu, Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, etc is made up of way more people in both official positions and just members of that religious community that aren't in it for those trivial reasons.  It saddens me that your view of religion is that dark and depressing.

And that comes from someone who has never been accused of being the most religiously minded of people.

Modifié par wcholcombe, 20 février 2014 - 04:42 .

[durasteel]

wcholcombe wrote...
... They need to demonstrate the dangers of Blood Magic, including to PCs. I am sorry but their needs to be an in game price that fits with the lore for using blood magic. Even if it simply means that you eventually start sucking life from your comrades in battle automatically, they need to demonstrate that price and temptation. They also need to demonstrate better the dangers of Abominations. ...

I think you might be confusing matters a little bit. There is lore about blood magic, and there is lore about the Chantry's view of blood magic. These are definately not the same thing.

What you're describing is the Chantry's position on blood magic, which is that it is always a horrible thing, leads to demonic possession, forever corrupts the user, etc. What we see time and time again in the game is that while blood magic can be this horrible thing, it doesn't necessarily have to.

Malcom Hawke, as we discovered in Legacy, used blood magic on behalf of the Grey Wardens to great effect for the greater good. In fact, many indications are that Grey Warden mages use blood magic when they need to, and if the Chantry's dogma were correct every Warden garrison would look like Soldier's Peak at its worst.

Merrill uses blood magic carefully and with precautions. I know there are those who disagree with me on this, but to me DA2 is pretty clear that Marethari was wrong to assume that Merrill was vulnerable. Merrill was prepared to face the demon, even going so far as to get Hawke to promise to kill her if her preparations failed and the demon did possess her. When Marethari was all "omg you didn't know the demon wuz evul" I really concluded that the keeper was an idiot, because Merrill obviously knew what she was doing was dangerous and had just talked to Hawke about it.

Flemeth and Morrigan both use blood magic rituals as plot devices, and don't seem to be any worse for wear.

In short, it seems that the Chantry wants to apply a worst case scenario to every instance of blood magic, probably because of the threat of mind control against its heirarchy and noble patrons.

That same attitude seems to prevail when dealing with "abominations." If the Chantry were to learn of Wynn's possession by a spirit of faith, many of the clerics would probably shriek "Kill it! Kill it with fire!" Not all possessions are abominable.

[durasteel]

wcholcombe wrote...
Ok, I have to take issue with that.  There may be people at the higher levels of organized religion that operate under that mantra, but any organized faith--Christainity, Hindu, Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, etc is made up of way more people in both official positions and just members of that religious community that aren't in it for those trivial reasons.  It saddens me that your view of religion is that dark and depressing.

And that comes from someone who has never been accused of being the most religiously minded of people.

Why don't you tell that to the Inca? I'm sure they would love to hear about how the reasons that the Catholic Church had for pillaging their nation and destroying their culture weren't trivial. If you could find any Philisines, I'm sure they would love to hear about the non-trivial motivations of the Israelites. And of course, jihad is always invoked for non-trivial reasons, right?

I'm not talking about individuals--just as the Chantry has had Elthina, real world religions have their benevolent souls as well. As institutions, though, their behavior is historically very bad.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Volunteer "armies" in the crusades. As if peasants were really trusted to be an army and not cannon fodder. It's not an army if everyone is just a equivalent rank to private/maggot, it's more like a volunteer horde.

But enough of that. I think people are assuming historical precedent where none exists in the mage templar conflict. And such assumptions can provide most dangerous when trying to figure solutions to problems.

[wcholcombe]

Here we go again:
1) The lore on blood magic states that it weakens the fade attracting demons for possession as demonstrated in DAO-the circle and in Asunder when Rhys almost becomes possessed in the battle.
2) The lore in WOT and in game repeatedly states that people who use blood magic become obsessed with power and even those who use it for the right reasons and only use their own blood are eventually tempted to using the blood of others to get stronger power. It is the great failing of DAO in how they presented blood mage that this is even a debate. Not surprisingly the opinions seem to fall in accordance with pro mage/pro templar stances.
3) Merril was an idiot-yes personal opinion, but if I could have killed her and saved her tribe I would have in a heartbeat.
4) We don't know what Flemeth is or what her plan is. Rumors abound of her possessing her own daughters to survive, at this point she is as likely to bring a return of the Imperium and blood sacrifice with her on a throne of bloody skulls as anything else. Morrigan is raising an OGB, the OG's taught blood magic and it was part of their religion--resulting in thousands if not millions of blood sacrifices? How is that not evil?

Wynn was not what the Chantry would necessarily define as an abomination. She never lost control of herself. Anders may or may not have. The classical definition of abomination is Orsino, the possessed mages in the circle tower, the child in redcliff, the tranquil in Asunder. Those are abominations.

[durasteel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The Arishoks response was one of a fool. Starting a war? For what?

It is irrelevant if there were provocations when you strike the wrong target.
Are you telling me the Viscount provoked him?

The Arishok's authority, and in fact his very identity, came from following the Qun. If he quit following the Qun, in his mind he would cease to exist. The demands of the Qun were unequivocal, and he didn't have the authority to modify the Qun. The Arishok is the perfect example of the attitude that the only choice is to be.

I find that attitude repugnant, but it is a gross oversimplification to characterise his actions as those of a fool.

[Cainhurst Crow]

durasteel wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...
Ok, I have to take issue with that.  There may be people at the higher levels of organized religion that operate under that mantra, but any organized faith--Christainity, Hindu, Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, etc is made up of way more people in both official positions and just members of that religious community that aren't in it for those trivial reasons.  It saddens me that your view of religion is that dark and depressing.

And that comes from someone who has never been accused of being the most religiously minded of people.

Why don't you tell that to the Inca? I'm sure they would love to hear about how the reasons that the Catholic Church had for pillaging their nation and destroying their culture weren't trivial. If you could find any Philisines, I'm sure they would love to hear about the non-trivial motivations of the Israelites. And of course, jihad is always invoked for non-trivial reasons, right?

I'm not talking about individuals--just as the Chantry has had Elthina, real world religions have their benevolent souls as well. As institutions, though, their behavior is historically very bad.

The catholic church didnt pillage that region of the world, spain did. Spain wanted more territory, as did protugal, and england, and france, and pretty much every European nation that has risen to prominence. The church got involved in drafting rules for how countries could claim land, because spain and protugal almost declared war when they both wanted the americas. Spain got the east and Protugal got the west, which was kinda a **** deal for Portugal because all they got was japan and a few other asian countires, and we know how that turned out.
Basically all the church did was negotiate a treaty to stop two European powers from killing eachother while being unaware or unconcerned with the other countries in question,  which is something that isn't anything to do with religion and everything to do with human nature.

[wcholcombe]

durasteel wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...
Ok, I have to take issue with that.  There may be people at the higher levels of organized religion that operate under that mantra, but any organized faith--Christainity, Hindu, Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, etc is made up of way more people in both official positions and just members of that religious community that aren't in it for those trivial reasons.  It saddens me that your view of religion is that dark and depressing.

And that comes from someone who has never been accused of being the most religiously minded of people.

Why don't you tell that to the Inca? I'm sure they would love to hear about how the reasons that the Catholic Church had for pillaging their nation and destroying their culture weren't trivial. If you could find any Philisines, I'm sure they would love to hear about the non-trivial motivations of the Israelites. And of course, jihad is always invoked for non-trivial reasons, right?

I'm not talking about individuals--just as the Chantry has had Elthina, real world religions have their benevolent souls as well. As institutions, though, their behavior is historically very bad.

This is getting off topic, but both Pizzaro with the Incas and Cortez with the Aztecs weren't operating for the Catholic Churcn.  They were both searching for gold for the Country of Spain and were financed by the King and Queen of Spain.  The Catholic church as an entity had little to do with the actual conquest of the new world. The financing, outfitting, and expedition itself was all for the benefit of spain and the conquestadors were pursuing knighthoods.  The quest for the golden spurs was what that was about for Cortez and Pizzaro, not the Catholic Church.

Now, if you are speaking of the Crusades/Inquisition/Jihads/PakistanVIndia/ etc I won't argue with you.  But again we are getting off topic.

[wcholcombe]

durasteel wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The Arishoks response was one of a fool. Starting a war? For what?

It is irrelevant if there were provocations when you strike the wrong target.
Are you telling me the Viscount provoked him?

The Arishok's authority, and in fact his very identity, came from following the Qun. If he quit following the Qun, in his mind he would cease to exist. The demands of the Qun were unequivocal, and he didn't have the authority to modify the Qun. The Arishok is the perfect example of the attitude that the only choice is to be.

I find that attitude repugnant, but it is a gross oversimplification to characterise his actions as those of a fool.

Agreed, the Arishok was playing true to his nature. He had attempted to peacefully find the book and had failed, thereby he was not allowed to leave without said book, so he started killing people until said book was returned. If a certain self serving thieving pirate had simply returned the book, the Arishok would have left long ago.

[durasteel]

wcholcombe wrote...
3) Merril was an idiot-yes personal opinion, but if I could have killed her and saved her tribe I would have in a heartbeat.

I had no problem with helping Merrill and still saving her tribe. I feel like removing Marethari was ultimately to their benefit anyway. I thought Marrill was a savant, Marethari was the idiot.

wcholcombe wrote...
Wynn was not what the Chantry would necessarily define as an abomination. She never lost control of herself. Anders may or may not have. The classical definition of abomination is Orsino, the possessed mages in the circle tower, the child in redcliff, the tranquil in Asunder. Those are abominations.

That is exactly my point. The Chantry doesn't distinguish among possessions or possessed, and treats the entire matter of spirit possession as if Orsino is the inevitable outcome.