444 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir JK]

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.

 

You don't mindcontrol them. It's so much easier to target their relatives, dependents and loved ones. Blackmail is the name of the game. The Tevinter system is fundamentally exactly the same as the Orlesian Game. It's not about being the strongest, it's about having the longest reach.

But even so, the Blood magic is more superior firepower than mind control in this case. And it's a policy that inherently benefits the rich slaveowners (lots of expendable fuel).

 

The system is also, by evolution, inherently inclusive. It'd be trivial to enter politics in Tevinter, since every mage is always on the lookout for strong apprentices. They need them to have an edge. And there'll always be a magister supporting more or less the same ideas you do, so getting in is easy. It's getting ahead that's difficult. It's an exploitive system, oh yes. But a very dynamic one. And that is a much stronger reason why they don't need tranquilisation.

 

What you say about enchantments is true though. But again, the magisters do not need the money. They have that in huge amounts as landowners. They don't have the same impetus on them to tranquilise for income. And the surface dwarf community in Minrathous is the largest in Thedas.

[Xilizhra]

 

You don't mindcontrol them. It's so much easier to target their relatives, dependents and loved ones. Blackmail is the name of the game. The Tevinter system is fundamentally exactly the same as the Orlesian Game. It's not about being the strongest, it's about having the longest reach.

But even so, the Blood magic is more superior firepower than mind control in this case. And it's a policy that inherently benefits the rich slaveowners (lots of expendable fuel).

 

The system is also, by evolution, inherently inclusive. It'd be trivial to enter politics in Tevinter, since every mage is always on the lookout for strong apprentices. They need them to have an edge. And there'll always be a magister supporting more or less the same ideas you do, so getting in is easy. It's getting ahead that's difficult. It's an exploitive system, oh yes. But a very dynamic one. And that is a much stronger reason why they don't need tranquilisation.

 

What you say about enchantments is true though. But again, the magisters do not need the money. They have that in huge amounts as landowners. They don't have the same impetus on them to tranquilise for income. And the surface dwarf community in Minrathous is the largest in Thedas.

Truth be told, I think most magisters worth their name would actually shed anyone who could be considered loved ones, as being points of weakness; they'd still have children, of course, but those children will either be mages as well or irrelevant to the parent. And it's not quite the same thing as the Game; while that may be more about influence, Tevinter seems to be quite a bit more focused on personal power, which is why mages are the ones at the top.

 

Where did it say that Minrathous has the largest surface dwarf community in the world? If that's true, then you're probably right; they likely wouldn't bother with Tranquility.

[Sir JK]

Truth be told, I think most magisters worth their name would actually shed anyone who could be considered loved ones, as being points of weakness; they'd still have children, of course, but those children will either be mages as well or irrelevant to the parent. And it's not quite the same thing as the Game; while that may be more about influence, Tevinter seems to be quite a bit more focused on personal power, which is why mages are the ones at the top.

 

Where did it say that Minrathous has the largest surface dwarf community in the world? If that's true, then you're probably right; they likely wouldn't bother with Tranquility.

 

WoT page 79. Not spelled outright mind, but it describes in detail how influential and incredible it is. It's a city within a city in it's own right.

 

And I doubt the first paragraph. While Tevinter sounds like the sith empire or similar often enough, I honestly do not think it's that bad. The magisters are, despite everything, more often that not human and have the same needs and desires as any of us. They're just involved in a very ruthless political system (those do tend to draw out the worst in all of us).

 

But I think we've taken this tangent far enough. I'd love to take it to the messenger if you wish to continue it, but we should probably steer this back to moderate characters.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

 

(...)

he's either representation of the second coming of Christ or just a heretic who believe the Holy Spirit work with him, that is his character.

(...)

He heal the sick, love cats, nice guy, loved by common peoples, handsome...he against blood magic, oppression, religious authority...he can exorcise Bartrand, he can check out if someone get possessed...the only thing he can't do is revive the dead, that not shown in any cut scenes...his character is actually the character of Christ

 

In other word...he believe what he done is the work of God...even he don't admit depends on your relationship with him, he represent THE CHARACTER of Christ or some religious lunatic who believe Holy Spirit working with him

 

Well, that's certainly a very interesting view.

 

I'm not saying his motives had nothing to do with religion, far from it. The Chantry, as very powerful institution with all it's beliefs, turned blind eye on abusing one group of faithful by another. I think he, as a proud Andrastian and a mage, just had enough of Chantry hypocrisy and maybe even he justified it, maybe he believed he was fulfilling the will of the Maker somehow. But that's about it, I don't think he saw himself as incarnation of Andraste.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

So the point is...the extremism is indeed RELIGIOUS in nature...the core of DA2 is about religious extremism...in which badly represented, or as a message to the player

 

Unlike DA2 in which religious is not the point, just as spices...even so i question the intention of the option to defile a religious figure remain with no point at all exist in the game...

 

I don't think destruction of the Chantry was his ultimate goal, or maybe it was... you can never tell with abominations :/

[AresKeith]

By no means would it necessarily make for a worse experience. Mass Effect wasn't diminished because you couldn't side with the Reapers, for instance. And then there are games like TOR, where the Empire is clearly the evil side, but the vast majority of its players don't mind because the choice was made clear from the beginning.

Don't be hatin on the Empire

[Lorien19]

I don't mind the fact that we may have some characters with extreme views, as long as  character development occurs.I'd hate to see someone starting off as having an extreme view towards magic for example, and still maintain the same opinion even after witnessing the opposite of what he's been taught/experienced about it.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Apparently if you are religious, then EVERY decission you will ever make is a religiously charged decision, and is entirely determined by your faith. So saith Qistina.

[The Hierophant]

Flawless logic Qis.

[Iakus]

Anders is very religious, he believe in the religion, but he believe differently. He even explain to you what is the spirits really....what is the spirit? They are the first children of the Maker...who is The Maker? The Maker is God

 

I am not English speaking, but i understand that clearly, and i am used to the Biblical things, i also read Bible and talk/debate/discuss with Christians...So, through Anders dialogues in DA2, he's either representation of the second coming of Christ or just a heretic who believe the Holy Spirit work with him, that is his character...i can understand that clearly.

 

He heal the sick, love cats, nice guy, loved by common peoples, handsome...he against blood magic, oppression, religious authority...he can exorcise Bartrand, he can check out if someone get possessed...the only thing he can't do is revive the dead, that not shown in any cut scenes...his character is actually the character of Christ

 

You may argue about religious belief with him, he have his own views about religion. The end result is he blow up the Chantry, the religious symbol that is representing religious oppression toward Mages...the corrupt Church who rule with iron fist, playing politic, using religion for their own gain, the hypocrisy....

 

In other word...he believe what he done is the work of God...even he don't admit depends on your relationship with him, he represent THE CHARACTER of Christ or some religious lunatic who believe Holy Spirit working with him

In the Legacy DLC Anders expresses disbelief that in the Chantry teaching of how the Golden City was Blackened.  He thought it was all propaganda used as an excuse to oppress mages.

 

He ends up extremely troubled when it was revealed that Corypheus was in fact a Tevinter magister to helped storm the Golden City.  Lending at least some credence to the Chantry's version of events

 

In addition, my fully rivaled Anders was horrified at what he had done after blowing up the Chantry.  And even more so, what happened to Justice: "I turned my friend into a demon!"

 

 In the end, he begged for death before he lost control again.

[Iakus]

I'm just saying that Anders is not necessarily a messianic figure.  He can be horrified at what he has done, even to the point of feeling guilty enough to want to die to atone for his actions.  (heck, he can ultimately side with the templars)  And there is at least some evidence that the Chantry has legitimate reasons to think what they do, even if their methods have been badly perverted over the centuries. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

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.

Tevinter not only practices tranquilization but also still have a templar order to keep the peace in the circles they have there. The templars are controlled by the black chantry and magister assembly (forgot the name) but they still function with the same rights, including the right of annulment.

Which suggests that either tevinter is still following the chantry teachings to a tee, highly unlikely given how much was changed by them in breaking from the chantry, or they as a highly mage centric society first the s practices more beneficial then the alternative.

EDIT: An additional point of note is their view on blood magic, that it is both be and a part of their history and culture. According to WOT tevinter's majority of mages dont approve of using blood magic anymore. It's glory has been tarnished by the ills they feel it has brought on them and many do not believe in the notion of a good blood mage. They still teach people the arching secretly because they acknowledge how powerful it is.

Its akin to how people view and greater firearms in the US. That's its yohr right to own them, that they aren't meant for ****** around, and thst you never point them at anyone unless you intend to kill them.

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't agree at all

 

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

 

I disagree.  I think part of why these games get rated M for Mature is because of an idea that people are able to disassociate what happens in game from any sort of messages.

 

By making a religious institution evil/grey in a video game, it's not a statement that I think ALL religion is evil/grey, or even that any real life example of religion is evil/grey.  The only statement is that, within this fictional universe, this religion is evil/grey.  Reading into intention when trying to create a compelling and interesting game setting is a risky thing leaving one open to making incorrect assumptions.

 

 

 

 

And making it clearer wouldn't truly harm anything, as far as I can tell, at least in the major cases

 

I disagree.  On a personal level if it's "well, you're clearly the good guys and if I just side with you, it makes no real difference" makes for a significantly less interesting game experience.  These games put me and my characters in places where non-trivial decisions need to be made and the consequences of those decisions need to be considered.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I think that it can be.  But I also think that there's a reflection that it's still fiction, and there's attempts to place people in challenging circumstances.  As a gamer, I enjoy being put in situations where "doing what I believe in" comes with consequences.  It feels more rewarding and enjoyable as a game experience.  In real life, I certainly prefer that doing what I believe in come with minimal challenges to that position.  There's a disconnect in how I want my video game experiences and how I want my real life.

 

 

 

 

Mages can break free of mind control relatively easily, as shown in Enemies Among Us with a mage Hawke.

 

It's critical to note that the player character is almost always a special little snowflake.  It's why it's typically the player that accomplishes all the things in a game and not someone else

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 02 mars 2014 - 11:18 .
Added last quote and response

[Mihura]

I am not saying moderate characters or neutral characters should not exist but in times of conflict and for people that rule most of the time that is a mistake, if you have no means to defend yourself, you have to take sides to avoid more conflicts or even your own downfall. Off course having incompetent characters is important too. 

A great example of that is presented with the Chantry incident because the Grand Cleric Elthina insist in avoiding taking sides. When that happens you found yourself without allies and dead. 

[EmissaryofLies]

I am not saying moderate characters or neutral characters should not exist but in times of conflict and for people that rule most of the time that is a mistake, if you have no means to defend yourself, you have to take sides to avoid more conflicts or even your own downfall. Off course having incompetent characters is important too. 

A great example of that is presented with the Chantry incident because the Grand Cleric Elthina insist in avoiding taking sides. When that happens you found yourself without allies and dead. 

 

Exactly my point.

 

The moderates need a bigger stick to back up such soft words. 

[Wulfram]

It's critical to note that the player character is almost always a special little snowflake.  It's why it's typically the player that accomplishes all the things in a game and not someone else

 

Mage companions can do it too.  Though companions are still pretty snowflakey.

 

(I've missed the context to this, hopefullly it's not too off point)

[Mihura]

Exactly my point.

 

The moderates need a bigger stick to back up such soft words. 

 

Yes and bigger cunning habitability, basically a intelligent bigger stick. Having a moderate attitude in times of peace is fine or at least give the illusion that you are a moderate person, that acts only with a good set of "moral" rules. But not really.

 

Of course you need incompetent characters too, I say this again, I am not against that, at all. Just like in the real world, more times than not leaders and people just do not see it that way and prefer the less conflicting way, which happen to be the most tragic one.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

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...

 

Anders is a protestant, and maybe a heretic...but we look through Varric interpretation

Um, the races of Thedas are also children of the Maker. Even the demons are. Does that mean that when they tell you something, the Maker is speaking through them?

[Master Warder Z_]

Um, the races of Thedas are also children of the Maker. Even the demons are. Does that mean that when they tell you something, the Maker is speaking through them?

 

I buy into the Bioware line that the Maker has fallen silent in the world.

 

That said i buy into that god more then the elven Pantheon.

 

At least there is some credence to a Maker like figure exists out there somewhere.

 

There isn't anything for the elves beyond rumor and speculation.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I am not saying moderate characters or neutral characters should not exist but in times of conflict and for people that rule most of the time that is a mistake, if you have no means to defend yourself, you have to take sides to avoid more conflicts or even your own downfall. Off course having incompetent characters is important too. 

A great example of that is presented with the Chantry incident because the Grand Cleric Elthina insist in avoiding taking sides. When that happens you found yourself without allies and dead. 

 

i'm not talking about a ruler, I'm talking about a companion or a character stationed at our keep, sort of like the senischal in awakening. Just some character who doesn't just keep quiet when the pro-mage, or pro-templar, or pro-dalish, or pro-elf, or pro-human, or pro-dwarf, or pro-qunari, or any of the anti-'insert faction here' characters get to have their long winded monologue and is willing to pretty much say "that's biased crap and you know it, and here's why". They can be right and they can be wrong on some points, fine. But having someone be willing to call out both sides as being wrong would be welcome. At this point I'd be willing to even just have a character who didn't care about any side like zaeed from mass effect and have them just rain on everyone's parade.

 

 

Yes and bigger cunning habitability, basically a intelligent bigger stick. Having a moderate attitude in times of peace is fine or at least give the illusion that you are a moderate person, that acts only with a good set of "moral" rules. But not really.

 

Of course you need incompetent characters too, I say this again, I am not against that, at all. Just like in the real world, more times than not leaders and people just do not see it that way and prefer the less conflicting way, which happen to be the most tragic one.

 

So tell me, why exactly do you equate moderate positions with incompetence? Maybe a character feels that the circle system could be improved, but that breaking from the chantry and declaring war isn't the way to do it. Is that really an incompetent mindset to have?

[Allan Schumacher]

Mage companions can do it too.  Though companions are still pretty snowflakey.

 

(I've missed the context to this, hopefullly it's not too off point)

 

This is true (and I agree that they are often unique too).

 

Part of it is balancing the narrative with the game player experience.  If we have two sides to a decision, for example, having all the party members end up dead because you happened to make one of those decisions can seriously impact one's enjoyment of the game because it may not be able to be completed and whatnot.

 

That said, having no consequence at all can be a bad thing too.  I think it's an interesting balancing act and challenge.

[Xilizhra]

I disagree.  On a personal level if it's "well, you're clearly the good guys and if I just side with you, it makes no real difference" makes for a significantly less interesting game experience.  These games put me and my characters in places where non-trivial decisions need to be made and the consequences of those decisions need to be considered.

That's why I believe that how to work with the good guys is where the really interesting questions can come in, as opposed to whether or not to do so.

 

I think that it can be.  But I also think that there's a reflection that it's still fiction, and there's attempts to place people in challenging circumstances.  As a gamer, I enjoy being put in situations where "doing what I believe in" comes with consequences.  It feels more rewarding and enjoyable as a game experience.  In real life, I certainly prefer that doing what I believe in come with minimal challenges to that position.  There's a disconnect in how I want my video game experiences and how I want my real life.

While Bioware doesn't do it horribly, I also don't think that it does this terribly well. When you set up an oppressed race or caste, then invent artificial and frankly somewhat uninspired reasons to make the majority's xenophobia feel justified to some, and then don't even focus on either of the two main peoples in this category but veer off into more generic fantasy adventure plots (that DA2 at least avoided to some extent)... it's not a story that I'm feeling all that much, from this perspective.

 

It's critical to note that the player character is almost always a special little snowflake.  It's why it's typically the player that accomplishes all the things in a game and not someone else

As gamist, immersion-breaking and frankly stupid as this trope is, I could accept it were it not made specifically different for mage Hawke.

[AresKeith]

This is true (and I agree that they are often unique too).

 

Part of it is balancing the narrative with the game player experience.  If we have two sides to a decision, for example, having all the party members end up dead because you happened to make one of those decisions can seriously impact one's enjoyment of the game because it may not be able to be completed and whatnot.

 

That said, having no consequence at all can be a bad thing too.  I think it's an interesting balancing act and challenge.

 

That was one of the issues I had with the ME series when the Paragon options seemed to have no consequences at all

[Master Warder Z_]

That was one of the issues I had with the ME series when the Paragon options seemed to have no consequences at all

 

Some of those choices really should have had profound consequences...About the only one that comes to mind is that one results in Javik deciding to commit suicide in his species old territory rather then living out his days in this new universe.

[Xilizhra]

Some of those choices really should have had profound consequences...About the only one that comes to mind is that one results in Javik deciding to commit suicide in his species old territory rather then living out his days in this new universe.

Not actually a Paragon choice, it only occupied that slot.

 

Although rewriting the geth does damage the Rannoch peace process.