8640 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Banxey2 wrote...

Assuming there is some form of ignition system, there would need to be fuel. And as LDS pointed out, the Chantry likely stores lyrium. There is even evidence to suggest this is true.

What processed lyrium is sold on the surface goes only to the Chantry, who strictly control the supply. From the Chantry, it is dispensed both to the templars, who make use of it in tracking and fighting maleficarum, and to the Circle.

Chatnry as an institution and the chantry as a building are two different things.

Do you really think the Chantry stores lyrium within a chantry (church)?

You say it makes no sense for them to store it in the Circles, but somehow it does make sense to store a magical and deadly mineral in a temple where the masses gather?


Please.... if anything, they have a secured storage somewhere.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Banxey2 wrote...

Assuming there is some form of ignition system, there would need to be fuel. And as LDS pointed out, the Chantry likely stores lyrium. There is even evidence to suggest this is true.

What processed lyrium is sold on the surface goes only to the Chantry, who strictly control the supply. From the Chantry, it is dispensed both to the templars, who make use of it in tracking and fighting maleficarum, and to the Circle.

Chatnry as an institution and the chantry as a building are two different things.

Do you really think the Chantry stores lyrium within a chantry (church)?

You say it makes no sense for them to store it in the Circles, but somehow it does make sense to store a magical and deadly mineral in a temple where the masses gather?


Please.... if anything, they have a secured storage somewhere.

I see no real reason why not. Once processed, lyrium can be handled by anyone and only long durations of exposure or getting it into your bloodstream. And the Chantry will want to keep the valuable material in the safest place possible, and that would be the Chantry building itself, or rather a secure storehouse built beneath. After all, who would attack a church who is practically a superpower just for some lyrium. And at the same time, the Chantry keeps its reigns on their Templars as tight and secure as possible. The only other possible place they would store it is the Circle, but for obvious reasons already explained they won't keep it, or at least won't keep most of it, there.

[Banxey]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Banxey2 wrote...

Assuming there is some form of ignition system, there would need to be fuel. And as LDS pointed out, the Chantry likely stores lyrium. There is even evidence to suggest this is true.

What processed lyrium is sold on the surface goes only to the Chantry, who strictly control the supply. From the Chantry, it is dispensed both to the templars, who make use of it in tracking and fighting maleficarum, and to the Circle.

Chatnry as an institution and the chantry as a building are two different things.

Do you really think the Chantry stores lyrium within a chantry (church)?

You say it makes no sense for them to store it in the Circles, but somehow it does make sense to store a magical and deadly mineral in a temple where the masses gather?


Please.... if anything, they have a secured storage somewhere.

I see no real reason why not. Once processed, lyrium can be handled by anyone and only long durations of exposure or getting it into your bloodstream. And the Chantry will want to keep the valuable material in the safest place possible, and that would be the Chantry building itself, or rather a secure storehouse built beneath. After all, who would attack a church who is practically a superpower just for some lyrium. And at the same time, the Chantry keeps its reigns on their Templars as tight and secure as possible. The only other possible place they would store it is the Circle, but for obvious reasons already explained they won't keep it, or at least won't keep most of it, there.

LDS covered what I would say. But I actually realised earlier that small Chantries (like the one in Lothering) with no connection to a Circle would have to store lyrium for their Templars, even if it's in smaller quantities. So it's not like it's completely out of the norm to do so. And I would imagine the distance of the source and travel time would dictate how much any one Chantry has in storage. 

Also, I wasn't the one who said it made no sense to store it at the Circle. Though I agree it seems safer to store it at the Chantry.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...
And the Chantry will want to keep the valuable material in the safest place possible, and that would be the Chantry building itself, or rather a secure storehouse built beneath. After all, who would attack a church who is practically a superpower just for some lyrium.

Lyrium is expensive, so peoepl would be willign to steal it.

The Chantry the safest place it could be? A huge building with many potential entry points that has hunderds of people going in and out every day?


I do agree that a *small* amount would be kept on site, out of simple necessity/practicality.

Altough, we don't really know how lyrium distribution and storatage is handeled.

[leaguer of one]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...
And the Chantry will want to keep the valuable material in the safest place possible, and that would be the Chantry building itself, or rather a secure storehouse built beneath. After all, who would attack a church who is practically a superpower just for some lyrium.

Lyrium is expensive, so peoepl would be willign to steal it.

The Chantry the safest place it could be? A huge building with many potential entry points that has hunderds of people going in and out every day?


I do agree that a *small* amount would be kept on site, out of simple necessity/practicality.

Altough, we don't really know how lyrium distribution and storatage is handeled.

Again, having the drugs guared by the addicts is a good idea? And there ways to protect the lyrium in the chantry...Just have a dwarve make a safe.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Through simple logic and knowledge of logistics we can determine that since the lion's share of the Lyrium supply is going to be consumed at the Circle, that most of the Lyrium would be stored at the Circle. Contrary to popular belief (apparently) the Chantry does not expect the mages to rebel at any given moment, and would actually be willing to trust them with the safekeeping of Lyrium, especially since large contingents of Templars would be on site anyway.

[leaguer of one]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Through simple logic and knowledge of logistics we can determine that since the lion's share of the Lyrium supply is going to be consumed at the Circle, that most of the Lyrium would be stored at the Circle. Contrary to popular belief (apparently) the Chantry does not expect the mages to rebel at any given moment, and would actually be willing to trust them with the safekeeping of Lyrium, especially since large contingents of Templars would be on site anyway.

Your not getting that the issue i not just the mages? You're saying the main part of the drug the templars are addicted to shoulf have the majority of it's share in the place they work and live? The same templars that smuggler more lyrium in the tower for them to use that they by with their own money when they ae already getting some for free form the chantry?

[EmperorSahlertz]

leaguer of one wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Through simple logic and knowledge of logistics we can determine that since the lion's share of the Lyrium supply is going to be consumed at the Circle, that most of the Lyrium would be stored at the Circle. Contrary to popular belief (apparently) the Chantry does not expect the mages to rebel at any given moment, and would actually be willing to trust them with the safekeeping of Lyrium, especially since large contingents of Templars would be on site anyway.

Your not getting that the issue i not just the mages? You're saying the main part of the drug the templars are addicted to shoulf have the majority of it's share in the place they work and live? The same templars that smuggler more lyrium in the tower for them to use that they by with their own money when they ae already getting some for free form the chantry?

And you don't seem to grasp that Templars are not heroin crackheads just itching for their next fix. Most Templars are completely levelheaded, and the ones who actually do crave more than their share are either kicked out of the Order, or left in the dungeons to die.

[renfrees]

Uneven presentation is mainly because you cannot play as a Templar protagonist, but you can freely play as a powerful Mage, including Blood Mage (and thus naturally sympathize with mages' plight) without any consequences of your actions. Also the dangers of Blood magic and demonic possession weren't presented gravely enough IMHO, for player to understand why mages in DA universe were feared and confined for centuries. Lack of representation of atrocities of Tevinter Imperium, where mages are actually free, doesn't help either.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Chatnry as an institution and the chantry as a building are two different things.

Do you really think the Chantry stores lyrium within a chantry (church)?

You say it makes no sense for them to store it in the Circles, but somehow it does make sense to store a magical and deadly mineral in a temple where the masses gather?


Please.... if anything, they have a secured storage somewhere.

 

When you talk to the chantry in denerim, they mention how one of their chanters went crazy by spending too much time near the lyrium stores.

 

So yeah, they store it in the church.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Uneven presentation is mainly because you cannot play as a Templar protagonist, but you can freely play as a powerful Mage, including Blood Mage (and thus naturally sympathize with mages' plight) without any consequences of your actions. Also the dangers of Blood magic and demonic possession weren't presented gravely enough IMHO, for player to understand why mages in DA universe were feared and confined for centuries. Lack of representation of atrocities of Tevinter Imperium, where mages are actually free, doesn't help either.

Um you can play a templar in the games. You can't start out as a member of the templar order but you can still be a templar.

[renfrees]

Um you can play a templar in the games. You can't start out as a member of the templar order but you can still be a templar.

You can play as a Warrior with Templar spec in DAII, not as an actual Templar. And game doesn't acknowledge you as a Templar, only pro-Templar and only if you RP as such. Can't say the same about playing a Mage.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Game doesn't acknowledge you as a blood mage either but that didn't stop you from bringing it up.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Game doesn't acknowledge you as a blood mage either but that didn't stop you from bringing it up.

Which is of course also part of the problem.

[Xilizhra]

Uneven presentation is mainly because you cannot play as a Templar protagonist, but you can freely play as a powerful Mage, including Blood Mage (and thus naturally sympathize with mages' plight) without any consequences of your actions. Also the dangers of Blood magic and demonic possession weren't presented gravely enough IMHO, for player to understand why mages in DA universe were feared and confined for centuries. Lack of representation of atrocities of Tevinter Imperium, where mages are actually free, doesn't help either.

Firstly, mages in Tevinter aren't free in general, only the aristocrats. Second, the game had every opportunity to show that blood magic was inherently possession-leading when we had a blood mage party member, and we were shown without a doubt that it didn't do anything in and of itself (any and all risks were due to other decisions that people made). Demonic possession was touched upon very often, especially in Kirkwall, and Tevinter atrocities got basically as much airing as possible without actually being in the nation itself.

[Hellion Rex]

Firstly, mages in Tevinter aren't free in general, only the aristocrats. Second, the game had every opportunity to show that blood magic was inherently possession-leading when we had a blood mage party member, and we were shown without a doubt that it didn't do anything in and of itself (any and all risks were due to other decisions that people made). Demonic possession was touched upon very often, especially in Kirkwall, and Tevinter atrocities got basically as much airing as possible without actually being in the nation itself.

However, it does need to be said that Merrill had a Dalish background which influenced greatly her perception and dealings with spirits, something another mage might not have.

[wcholcombe]

Why do people blame the chantry for the lyrium addiction of the Templars?  The templar order predates its association with the chantry as does their mage hunting duties.  I would venture to guess that the Templars were using lyrium to give them anti mage powers long before they were associated with the Chantry.

 

Also, as has been previously pointed out, just because you area  templar doesn't make you a lyrium fiend.  Dependent yes.  But just like a great many things that can be addictive in our society today, not everyone becomes an alcoholic who takes a drink of alcohol. People who drink a great deal of alcohol on occassion don't become alcoholics.  Some people who smoke or dip their entire lives are able to one day put it down and never touch tobacco again, while others can't.  The way people handle lyrium as templars will vary from templar to templar, and I really don't see someone in the Chantry telling Lord Seeker Lambert when and where he can have his lyrium.  Considering Templars are in charge of policing the lyrium trade/black market, it is entirely believable that the lyrium for templars is kept at the circle and rationed and administered by the templars.

[wcholcombe]

Firstly, mages in Tevinter aren't free in general, only the aristocrats. Second, the game had every opportunity to show that blood magic was inherently possession-leading when we had a blood mage party member, and we were shown without a doubt that it didn't do anything in and of itself (any and all risks were due to other decisions that people made). Demonic possession was touched upon very often, especially in Kirkwall, and Tevinter atrocities got basically as much airing as possible without actually being in the nation itself.

The blood mage thing is an issue of game design.  The designers so far haven't come up with a way to truly represent the dangers of blood magic to the user without making it a class that is basically gimped.  Merril is especially an issue with this, as one of my Hawkes was devoutly against blood magic, but I had not option to kill/turn merril over to the templars because of game design.

 

I think blood magic should be more powerful in battle than it is currenly designed, I think it should involved the danger of bringing demons into battles when used, I think it should possibly allow you to summon a demon that you have to maintane control of, and I think there should be something done relating to the tempatation to use the blood of you allies for power.  I think blood mages have a great opportunity for developement but they need to be fleshed out in a game way that fits with the lore.

 

But along that note, there are plenty of lore things that the gameplay ignores--Apostates walking around in mage robes with giant staffs on their back and no one cares, the darkspawn taint is meaningless to party members and pcs,  a templar's ability to cancel out a mages magic, an actual danger to the PC or party mages of possession, etc etc etc.

[LobselVith8]

So they retconned blood magic into the dark side of the Force?

I knew this would happen. I just KNEW they were gonna ruin blood magic for me.

I'm sad now. All my mages are screwed. There is no way out. No hope. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

Except we have blood mages who aren't evil, despite using blood magic, so I don't see how it's an inherently evil school of magic. Some Grey Warden mages use blood magic to give them an edge against the darkspawn (which can be the same reason the Warden-Commander from the Circle uses it); the Joining and the phylacteries are forms of blood magic; Finn used a form of blood magic to locate the Eluvian of the Dragonbone Wastes; Merrill used blood magic without abusing her powers for several years; some apostates simply use blood magic to protect themselves against the templars, who can nullify their powers otherwise (which can be the same reason an apostate Champion of Kirkwall uses it).

 

Unless the developers recton a significant portion of the lore and narrative that was already established, I don't see how they can make blood magic an inherently evil school of magic that corrupts the user as though it was the dark side of the Force.

 

I certainly hope that the representation of blood magic and blood mages isn't one of depicting monstrous caricatures, instead of three-dimensional characters.

[wcholcombe]

Except we have blood mages who aren't evil, despite using blood magic, so I don't see how it's an inherently evil school of magic. Some Grey Warden mages use blood magic to give them an edge against the darkspawn (which can be the same reason the Warden-Commander from the Circle uses it); the Joining and the phylacteries are forms of blood magic; Finn used a form of blood magic to locate the Eluvian of the Dragonbone Wastes; Merrill used blood magic without abusing her powers for several years; some apostates simply use blood magic to protect themselves against the templars, who can nullify their powers otherwise (which can be the same reason an apostate Champion of Kirkwall uses it).

 

Unless the developers recton a significant portion of the lore and narrative that was already established, I don't see how they can make blood magic an inherently evil school of magic that corrupts the user as though it was the dark side of the Force.

 

I certainly hope that the representation of blood magic and blood mages isn't one of depicting monstrous caricatures, instead of three-dimensional characters.

The lore of blood magic hasn't changed.  The problem is the implementation of blood magic in DAO and DA2 by pc characters has never truly reflected the danger/temptation that blood magic poses.  I am not saying BM has to be evil, but there are some risks to BM that gameplay does not represent that are shown in the lore and in the books.

[renfrees]

Firstly, mages in Tevinter aren't free in general, only the aristocrats. Second, the game had every opportunity to show that blood magic was inherently possession-leading when we had a blood mage party member, and we were shown without a doubt that it didn't do anything in and of itself (any and all risks were due to other decisions that people made). Demonic possession was touched upon very often, especially in Kirkwall, and Tevinter atrocities got basically as much airing as possible without actually being in the nation itself.

Well, thats kinda my point. You can be a BM, you can have BM in your party and no consequences. Not Hawke nor Merrill were ever really in danger of possession (devs kindly gave us Marethari as poor substitute in Merril's case) and even giving in to temptation and making a full pact with the demon didn't lead to anything, other than breaking Anders' romance (Night Terrors). Thanks for lousy +10 Rivalry, Bioware.

Merril's actions were influenced not by magic/bmagic, but her stupidity/naivety. Game doesn't accent enough why magic and mages are feared in Thedas, while it shows your PC/family being threatened by the Templars. Even one of the key points in 'All that Remains' can be advocated by insanity, thus lessening or diminishing magical aspect.

Tevinter atrocities were kinda optional, if you didn't interact with Fenris/Orana. Multiple slavers could be cast aside along with multiple abominations - as a mob. Just a fillers, there could be spiders/undead in their place and it wouldn't change anything, because your PC would be on the same level of involvement, i.e. zero. Without actually seeing/suffering the aspects of mage freedom, these atrocities just brushed you as a side story.

[Sir JK]

The lore of blood magic hasn't changed.  The problem is the implementation of blood magic in DAO and DA2 by pc characters has never truly reflected the danger/temptation that blood magic poses.  I am not saying BM has to be evil, but there are some risks to BM that gameplay does not represent that are shown in the lore and in the books.

 

While the (potential) risk regarding demons would be difficult to portray without adding what basically is "game over"-options in conversation (which I'd be in favour of, but that's a different discussion) I wonder if you couldn't portray how easily abused BM is?

Frequently allowing powerful conversation options that allows you, through ruthlessness, accomplish tasks with ease or acquire much greater rewards through a little blood magic. Gradually building up to a point where the easiest and quickest way to resolve a conflict is to kill an unwilling and innocent bystander (for a huge gain).

 

It wouldn't show BM as dangerous to the user per se, but it'd be an interesting experience. With limitless power, would you hold back?

[renfrees]

The blood mage thing is an issue of game design.  The designers so far haven't come up with a way to truly represent the dangers of blood magic to the user without making it a class that is basically gimped.  Merril is especially an issue with this, as one of my Hawkes was devoutly against blood magic, but I had not option to kill/turn merril over to the templars because of game design.

 

I think blood magic should be more powerful in battle than it is currenly designed, I think it should involved the danger of bringing demons into battles when used, I think it should possibly allow you to summon a demon that you have to maintane control of, and I think there should be something done relating to the tempatation to use the blood of you allies for power.  I think blood mages have a great opportunity for developement but they need to be fleshed out in a game way that fits with the lore.

 

But along that note, there are plenty of lore things that the gameplay ignores--Apostates walking around in mage robes with giant staffs on their back and no one cares, the darkspawn taint is meaningless to party members and pcs,  a templar's ability to cancel out a mages magic, an actual danger to the PC or party mages of possession, etc etc etc.

Wisely said, but i always thought that the main fear of BM was its ability of mind control, which no other school of magic made possible.

[LobselVith8]

I like Merril, but I'm sick and tired of her "suporters" proclaming her an expert on Eluvians, while clamining that no one else (including Mertharari) knows anything.
Did it ever occured  to anyone that maybe she knew more than she claimed?

 

By her own admission, Marethari knew relatively nothing about them in the Dalish Origin, and she doesn't think any research should be done on them in Dragon Age II. In contrast, Merrill extrapolated information from the shard and studied the lore on the Eluvian.

 

Clearly, Merrill put effort into understanding the Eluvians, while the Keeper gives absolutely no indication that she knows anything about them. Marethari makes it clear she doesn't think any study should be done on the Eluvians because the Keeper thinks their ancestors wanted them buried and forgotten, despite the fact that the Imperium managed to get a hold of them because the Arlathan elves were still using them before the fall of Arlathan.

 

You might be sick and tired of people pointing out the simple fact that Merrill put a lot of effort into understanding as much as she could about the Eluvians, but I'm not seeing why Merrill's painstaking research and study into the elven artifacts should be dismissed or diminished.

 

Merrill also stands out as a prime example of an independent mage who uses blood magic but isn't evil, which was a nice contrast to the multitude of criminally insane (and mindbogglingly stupid) mages who littered the narrative of Dragon Age II as hack and slash targets. I'm hoping for more three-dimensional mages and blood mages in Inquisition, who don't wear black hats and aren't one-dimensional evil villains.

[wcholcombe]

While the (potential) risk regarding demons would be difficult to portray without adding what basically is "game over"-options in conversation (which I'd be in favour of, but that's a different discussion) I wonder if you couldn't portray how easily abused BM is?

Frequently allowing powerful conversation options that allows you, through ruthlessness, accomplish tasks with ease or acquire much greater rewards through a little blood magic. Gradually building up to a point where the easiest and quickest way to resolve a conflict is to kill an unwilling and innocent bystander (for a huge gain).

 

It wouldn't show BM as dangerous to the user per se, but it'd be an interesting experience. With limitless power, would you hold back?

It actually wouldn't be that hard--In combat using BM creates the chance for the fade to be weakened and demons to if not possess the PC, possess innocents or your combatants.  If the a the BM PC is possessed that adds to the level of difficulty to fight them while fighting your original opponents.  This could be as simple as if you defeat them in combat they are unpossessed, or having to have the littany of andralla, or even going Wynne on them and defeating the demon in the fade.  As far as tempation your idea would work as long as there was some consequence for taking the easy route-like it cost you something, of course you could also set it up with a chance role where in combat you have a 25% chance of using the blood of your allies to power your spells rather than your enemies or something, or if you run out of mana you start syphoning off your allies life to power magic.  Of course you don't want this happening routinely or even a lot as it would become a pain than. There could even be skills in BM or a stat you invest points in that gives you more resistance to the tempations or whatever.