444 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

By itself, it wouldn't make for a worse game; it would have to be badly handled on top of that. Which could be the case for anything. And I have no problem with evil playthrough options; what I do have a problem with are allowing for the possibility of many people to think of them as good. Mass Effect had fewer of these because of the Paragon/Renegade thing, but it was still quite present.

There's nothing wrong with playing as a monster, so long as you acknowledge that that's what your playing.

 

Even then, prior to the end of the game I wouldn't say that I was playing as a monster either.  The character was fairly pragmatic and often did both lightside and darkside things.

 

 

But as you say, people will already draw their own conclusions as to what is considered ideal.

 

You and I can go "whoa, the destruction of that entire race is too much a cost" but someone coming along and going "Die race I don't like, you deserve this" and then believing that in doing so doesn't make them a monster.

 

Are you suggesting, then, that we should make it clearer in that "These are the bad guys" and "these are the good guys?"  I mean, even then I'm not even sure I'd agree that playing Renegade makes a player evil (although Paragon is certainly a very heroic playthrough).  Even my character, who was decidedly Paragon, still had no problems gaining some renegade points by giving the Admiral that tried killing me on the Geth Dreadnought a kidney shot.  It's certainly not an evil act as far as I'm concerned.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

And I have no problem with evil playthrough options; what I do have a problem with are allowing for the possibility of many people to think of them as good. Mass Effect had fewer of these because of the Paragon/Renegade thing, but it was still quite present.

There's nothing wrong with playing as a monster, so long as you acknowledge that that's what your playing.

 

I hope game won't point any fingers nor tell me what is good and what is bad. Mage/templar conflict is driven by two valid convictions and they are both right to a point. And that's the beauty of DA imho - developers finally got rid of childish, personified, evil archenemies.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I hope game won't point any fingers nor tell me what is good and what is bad. Mage/templar conflict is driven by two valid convictions and they are both right to a point. And that's the beauty of DA imho - developers finally got rid of childish, personified, evil archenemies.

Yeah, I like how there really has yet to be a side that is truly evil. I mean, there are the monster races of Darkspawn and Demons but besides them, everything is grey.

[Xilizhra]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think both sides were portrayed far better in DAO than DA2.

 

My main concern is being able to express my view and following a third path. Granted, it might be more easily if the war will not end in DAI, but I think concluding the war will cause a lot of problems for Bioware.

The templars still practice Tranquility, summary executions and Annulment. The incidental abuses in DA2 were certainly horrible, but they aren't the primary problem; it's the institutional ones that show that the templars should no longer be allowed to hold any power whatsoever, and those were just as evident in DAO as in DA2.

 

 

Even then, prior to the end of the game I wouldn't say that I was playing as a monster either.  The character was fairly pragmatic and often did both lightside and darkside things.

 

 

But as you say, people will already draw their own conclusions as to what is considered ideal.

 

You and I can go "whoa, the destruction of that entire race is too much a cost" but someone coming along and going "Die race I don't like, you deserve this" and then believing that in doing so doesn't make them a monster.

 

Are you suggesting, then, that we should make it clearer in that "These are the bad guys" and "these are the good guys?"  I mean, even then I'm not even sure I'd agree that playing Renegade makes a player evil (although Paragon is certainly a very heroic playthrough).  Even my character, who was decidedly Paragon, still had no problems gaining some renegade points by giving the Admiral that tried killing me on the Geth Dreadnought a kidney shot.  It's certainly not an evil act as far as I'm concerned.

IC, it certainly does make them a monster. OOC... well, one can glean some things about what positions they support.

 

And making it clearer wouldn't truly harm anything, as far as I can tell, at least in the major cases. I believe, in any case, that it's fundamentally disrespectful to certain oppressed minorities IRL to position certain oppressors in-game as being as much in the right as those they crush.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

I don't agree at all

 

It is...bad...bad writing...or there is hidden bad intention....

 

Well, many people wouldn't agree, media wouldn't either. Therefore i'm not expecting breakthrough in mainstream entertainment anytime soon. But I don't think it's related to the topic of this discussion

[TheKomandorShepard]

Well, many people wouldn't agree, media wouldn't either. Therefore i'm not expecting breakthrough in mainstream entertainment anytime soon. But I don't think it's related to the topic of this discussion

 

I agree with you but i hope that they get rid of claiming what is evil or good they won't force me either to be heroic paragon or for greater good renegade i hope for option to be ruthless and self-serving but no enforced philosophy...

[The Elder King]

The templars still practice Tranquility, summary executions and Annulment. The incidental abuses in DA2 were certainly horrible, but they aren't the primary problem; it's the institutional ones that show that the templars should no longer be allowed to hold any power whatsoever, and those were just as evident in DAO as in DA2

I never stated that templars are perfect, or the Circle system isn't flawed. I said that the portrayal was better than DA2.
Of two of the things you mentioned, they were Chantry laws. You can't expect templars to not uphold them. I dislike them, but until e they are present my expectations is that the templars do not abuse of it, and I don't think they did in DAO.
I disagree on the last part. I'm not against a new off taking a similar role of the templars in whatever system it'll be established, but I wouldn't rule the latters out.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

It just want to show "religious peoples can burn a city just because a holy book"...that is a bad message Bioware...bad message....

 

It's more like "Qunari can burn a city just because a holy book". I'm not really a fan of idea to read too much into a story. It complicates things and takes away the pleasure of hearing the story itself.

Actually, I'd be delighted if I could assist the Arishok with this burning thing, Kirkwall was kind of annoying...

[Xilizhra]

No...the extremism showing through the characters are bad example and bad message

 

Example...Arishok, i agree his character writing is good, the only good character i think...but everything about Qunari here is BAD in writing...the Qunari can build ships, canons, highly technology...but cannot print books? Just print 10000000 copies of Koslun books already, problem solved

 

It just want to show "religious peoples can burn a city just because a holy book"...that is a bad message Bioware...bad message....

 

if anyone want to burn my holy book, go on...i have copies and even can download from internet...no big deal...but the thing about Qunari in DA2 is just typical portrayal of religious peoples are bad and can do crazy things just because of a holy book

I think they do have printing, they just value the original as a sacred relic. Which... well, has happened plenty of times IRL.

 

 

I never stated that templars are perfect, or the Circle system isn't flawed. I said that the portrayal was better than DA2.
Of two of the things you mentioned, they were Chantry laws. You can't expect templars to not uphold them. I dislike them, but until e they are present my expectations is that the templars do not abuse of it, and I don't think they did in DAO.
I disagree on the last part. I'm not against a new off taking a similar role of the templars in whatever system it'll be established, but I wouldn't rule the latters out.

The thing is that those laws are inherently abusive. The Chantry definitely takes the blame for that, but the Chantry might have started to move beyond that point of view, and the templars have not, so I give them greater blame right this moment (in DAO, I'd be more inclined to blame the Chantry itself, it's true).

[The Elder King]

The thing is that those laws are inherently abusive. The Chantry definitely takes the blame for that, but the Chantry might have started to move beyond that point of view, and the templars have not, so I give them greater blame right this moment (in DAO, I'd be more inclined to blame the Chantry itself, it's true).

Fair enough.
I'm curious of one thing though. What would you think if mages still practices Tranquility, and you'll have no way to stop it?

[Xilizhra]

Fair enough.
I'm curious of one thing though. What would you think if mages still practices Tranquility, and you'll have no way to stop it?

Not quite as bad because they'd almost certainly keep the cure for it as well, but still definitely bad and annoying, and feeling somewhat like trolling. Unless it's done only with volunteers, and I'd say that even they would need to be vetted for it (by being made temporarily Tranquil, then cured and then asked if they actually want that in the long term).

[Xilizhra]

Which is important? The words or the book? If the words and it's teaching, no matter the original is stolen or whatever happen, the copies have the same thing. If the book is so important, does it really will lead to war...?

 

The point here is, the extremism that is shown is a stupid one...it is better the Arishok rampaging Kirkwall out of any other reason than a their one and only holy book they have....it just want to show "religious extremism" and attack on particular group of people that is "religious people"

 

All extremism in the game related to...religion

 

Arvaraad kill Ketojan, why? Religion say so

Ketojan kill himself, why? Religion say so

Arishok burn a city, why? Religion say so

Templar/Chantry oppress Mages, why? Religion say so

Anders burn the Chantry, why? He believe the spirit of Justice, the children of the Maker that is God told him so

Um... well, there were the Winters, who were mostly just racist, and the Dalish, who freaked out over falsified rumors about the darkspawn taint coming from the Eluvian.

[The Elder King]

I hadn't seen the part of Qistina's post about Anders and Justice. Sigh.

[Xilizhra]

I hadn't seen the part of Qistina's post about Anders and Justice. Sigh.

It's possible my reply to your post was buried on the last page.

[EmperorSahlertz]

And here I thought that Anders was driven by humanistic ideals. The more you know, I guess.

[The Elder King]

It's possible my reply to your post was buried on the last page.

Yeah, I missed it.

Not quite as bad because they'd almost certainly keep the cure for it as well, but still definitely bad and annoying, and feeling somewhat like trolling. Unless it's done only with volunteers, and I'd say that even they would need to be vetted for it (by being made temporarily Tranquil, then cured and then asked if they actually want that in the long term).

I doubt that the mages will apply it in the same way as the templars did myself. Don't know if they'll let people choose after being tranquilized. I think it's more likely that they'll explain better what being a Tranquil means.

[The Elder King]

And here I thought that Anders was driven by humanistic ideals. The more you know, I guess.

Indeed.

Anders rebellion is religious, and religious extremism

That still don't explain what you said about believing doing what God wants.

[Xilizhra]

I doubt that the mages will apply it in the same way as the templars did myself. Don't know if they'll let people choose after being tranquilized. I think it's more likely that they'll explain better what being a Tranquil means.

Let's hope they don't miss the "constant subconscious torment" part.

[Sir JK]

I doubt that the mages will apply it in the same way as the templars did myself. Don't know if they'll let people choose after being tranquilized. I think it's more likely that they'll explain better what being a Tranquil means.

 

I think this issue will boil down to who invented the practise. There's a lot of trappings of cooperation (not to be confused with actual cooperation) between templars and mages in how the circles were run. The apprentice phylacteries in Kinloch hold could not be accessed without a mage. Tranquilisation did, in theory, require the signature of the First Enchanter. Owain suggests that tranquilisation requires the forehead being branded by magic. Moreover, only a mage tutor could accurately make a prediction on how likely their student is to resist a demon.

 

So it boils down to whom invented it. How old the practise is.

 

If the mages themselves invented it (not entirely unlikely) then they're only going to stop doing it for idealogical reasons and chances are many of them will oppose it. There'd be an easy way to test this... Does Tevinter tranquilize? If no, then the mages will probably stop doing it. If yes, then they probably won't unless the Libertarians are overwhelmingly influential.

[Xilizhra]

I think this issue will boil down to who invented the practise. There's a lot of trappings of cooperation (not to be confused with actual cooperation) between templars and mages in how the circles were run. The apprentice phylacteries in Kinloch hold could not be accessed without a mage. Tranquilisation did, in theory, require the signature of the First Enchanter. Owain suggests that tranquilisation requires the forehead being branded by magic. Moreover, only a mage tutor could accurately make a prediction on how likely their student is to resist a demon.

 

So it boils down to whom invented it. How old the practise is.

 

If the mages themselves invented it (not entirely unlikely) then they're only going to stop doing it for idealogical reasons and chances are many of them will oppose it. There'd be an easy way to test this... Does Tevinter tranquilize? If no, then the mages will probably stop doing it. If yes, then they probably won't unless the Libertarians are overwhelmingly influential.

I don't think that necessarily follows. Tevinter is willing to outright enslave mages; the system isn't geared to benefit mages as a whole, but those mages who happen to be on top. It's entirely possible for Aequitarians and others to oppose it just because of how cruel it is, a thought process that many in Tevinter wouldn't care about at all.

[Sir JK]

I don't think that necessarily follows. Tevinter is willing to outright enslave mages; the system isn't geared to benefit mages as a whole, but those mages who happen to be on top. It's entirely possible for Aequitarians and others to oppose it just because of how cruel it is, a thought process that many in Tevinter wouldn't care about at all.

 

True, but Tevinter does not need to control it's mages quite the same way. Strictly speaking they don't need tranquilisation as a control mechanism, the power structure, political body and, if push comes to shove, blood magic handles that just as well. It's a system that premieres ambitious mages and exploits weak ones. As such if they tranquilise, it is because it's a policy that has remained (either from the Transfigurations or earlier). The question is why, since the idea of disenfrachising mages never took root there.

 

Which is essentially what I meant. If it is a control mechanism, the practise will be all but abolished (or plain just abolished). If the mages honestly believe they have no need for it then they won't keep it. Only a minority (loyalists) would ever argue in it's favour. If they do however, then a considerably larger amount of them will defend it. Even if acknowledging it's cruelty. They might be wrong, sure. But a percieved need is a strong motivation.

 

Which is why I think Tevinter is a good litmus test for this. If they think they need it, then chances are so will the mages. Now, you might be right and they'll abolish it due to it's cruelty. But it'll be a much tougher fight if Tevinter has kept it. Mainly because it strengthens the argument that it's actually useful outside of control.

[The Elder King]

You may ask his opinion about the the Divine...he said "but the Maker don't talk through the Divine"
 
It means the God talk through him, by the Spirit of Justice, children of the Maker that is God
 
The nature of his plight is religious all the way...Justice is the Holy Spirit who want to punish the corrupted Church...
 

No, it doesn't mean this at all. Saying that the Maker doesn't talk through the Divine doesn't mean that He talked through Anders. Claim actual sources for backing your claim.

[Xilizhra]

True, but Tevinter does not need to control it's mages quite the same way. Strictly speaking they don't need tranquilisation as a control mechanism, the power structure, political body and, if push comes to shove, blood magic handles that just as well. It's a system that premieres ambitious mages and exploits weak ones. As such if they tranquilise, it is because it's a policy that has remained (either from the Transfigurations or earlier). The question is why, since the idea of disenfrachising mages never took root there.

 

Which is essentially what I meant. If it is a control mechanism, the practise will be all but abolished (or plain just abolished). If the mages honestly believe they have no need for it then they won't keep it. Only a minority (loyalists) would ever argue in it's favour. If they do however, then a considerably larger amount of them will defend it. Even if acknowledging it's cruelty. They might be wrong, sure. But a percieved need is a strong motivation.

 

Which is why I think Tevinter is a good litmus test for this. If they think they need it, then chances are so will the mages. Now, you might be right and they'll abolish it due to it's cruelty. But it'll be a much tougher fight if Tevinter has kept it. Mainly because it strengthens the argument that it's actually useful outside of control.

Mages can break free of mind control relatively easily, as shown in Enemies Among Us with a mage Hawke. This is why magisters have duels and assassinations, as opposed to just mind controlling each other until only one free magister remains atop a pyramid of puppets.

And the other reason for Tranquility is because they can enchant things more cheaply than contracting dwarves to do it... but I came up with a way to work around that, by hiring casteless in large amounts and giving them an opportunity to live on the surface as enchanters for the Circle, after they can be taught how.

[EmperorSahlertz]

No, it doesn't mean this at all. Saying that the Maker doesn't talk through the Divine doesn't mean that He talked through Anders. Claim actual sources for backing your claim.

So, did you ever perfect the art of talking sense to a brick wall?

[The Elder King]

So, did you ever perfect the art of talking sense to a brick wall?

I'm mastering it .
Seriously, I should probably let it go.