Yep pretty much it is as it should be up to player how protagonist feels about things and others in RPG.
and well not mention what im saying that was in case...
I have no idea what that second line is supposed to be saying. Is that a coherent sentence? In case of what? Ellipses are not words.
Yep pretty much it is as it should be up to player how protagonist feels about things and others in RPG.
and well not mention what im saying that was in case...
I actually agree with you. Whether or not your character cries over a loss or just shrugs it off should be up to the player to decide. I don't like it when in an RPG the game decides for you how your character should feel.
That's why I'm really looking forward to the reaction wheel because if I play a cold character I want to react in a cold way.
I have no idea what that second line is supposed to be saying. Is that a coherent sentence? In case of what? Ellipses are not words.
I think that is literally how 90% of arguments with TKS start is because of his half sentences and barely readable sentences. I blame translator software since I don't think English is his first language.
You've got to admit murderers are always Human, Elf or Dwarf. With that kind of percentage we should be locking all humans, elves and dwarves up in towers so they can be monitored and allowed to practice their humanism, elfism and dwarfism in safety without harm to others.
In all seriousness though - yes - the mages don't seem to do themselves any favours. One of the things that DA2 got very right was how well played the choice was when you sided with Templar's at the end. Especially since you could save more mages that way than not.
You've got to admit murderers are always Human, Elf or Dwarf. With that kind of percentage we should be locking all humans, elves and dwarves up in towers so they can be monitored and allowed to practice their humanism, elfism and dwarfism in safety without harm to others.
In all seriousness though - yes - the mages don't seem to do themselves any favours. One of the things that DA2 got very right was how well played the choice was when you sided with Templar's at the end. Especially since you could save more mages that way than not.
Many mages escape the Circle if you side with it. Meanwhile all mages spared by siding with Templars are turned Tranquil.
Many mages escape the Circle if you side with it. Meanwhile all mages spared by siding with Templars are turned Tranquil.
Truly? Well there you go. I only did one play through with DA2 then reloaded a save and played the alternative and didn't pick up on that.
Ahh well. Poor buggers.
Swords and other sharp, pointy, stabby things cause a lot of problems too. Thedas needs to start locking up those terrible, obviously malicious buggers!
Many mages escape the Circle if you side with it. Meanwhile all mages spared by siding with Templars are turned Tranquil.
The evidence for that is circumstansial. Gaider said that he would imagine any mage survivors from an Annulment would be made Tranquil. He didn't specify and he didn't confirm, leaving lots of room for interpretation.
The tension between liberty and security has lasted for centuries since the beginning of civilization. It is hard to conclude which standard is superior to another because each side has its own advantages and disadvantages. This whole mage-templar conflict reminds me of the infamous Japanese internment case(Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)), which leads me to take pro-mage side in the light of Justice Jackson's dissenting opinion regarding this ill-advised court decision.
I am a non-native English speaker as you guys may have already noticed and it is really hard for me to say this properly in English. 
(I swear I could elaborate this more legally sophisticated in Korean but what can I say ME ENGLISH NO NO) So I'll just quote some of Justice Jackson's dissenting opinion from Wikipedia.
“[H]is crime would result, not from anything he did, said, or thought, different than they, but only in that he was born of different racial stock. Now, if any fundamental assumption underlies our system, it is that guilt is personal and not inheritable. Even if all of one's antecedents had been convicted of treason, the Constitution forbids its penalties to be visited upon him. But here is an attempt to make an otherwise innocent act a crime merely because this prisoner is the son of parents as to whom he had no choice, and belongs to a race from which there is no way to resign.”
I am aware that these two things are not the same but I do believe this case has some level of relevance to DA's mage-templar conflict when you put Mages & Circle of Magi into the equation instead of Japanese American & internment camps... or not. 
Well, if every single one of your ancestors for a century was a mage, that still wouldn't get you consigned to the tower. You have to actually be capable of working spells (and thus a potentially epic disaster if you ever get possessed) yourself.
The tension between liberty and security has lasted for centuries since the beginning of civilization. It is hard to conclude which standard is superior to another because each side has its own advantages and disadvantages. This whole mage-templar conflict reminds me of the infamous Japanese internment case(Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)), which leads me to take pro-mage side in the light of Justice Jackson's dissenting opinion regarding this ill-advised court decision.
I am a non-native English speaker as you guys may have already noticed and it is really hard for me to say this properly in English.
“[H]is crime would result, not from anything he did, said, or thought, different than they, but only in that he was born of different racial stock. Now, if any fundamental assumption underlies our system, it is that guilt is personal and not inheritable. Even if all of one's antecedents had been convicted of treason, the Constitution forbids its penalties to be visited upon him. But here is an attempt to make an otherwise innocent act a crime merely because this prisoner is the son of parents as to whom he had no choice, and belongs to a race from which there is no way to resign.”
I am aware that these two things are not the same but I do believe this case has some level of relevance to DA's mage-templar conflict when you put Mages & Circle of Magi into the equation instead of Japanese American & internment camps... or not.
True. This system is worst. This system goes one step further. The mages are not just segregated. They are property of the Chantry. If they have a baby, the baby is taken away. It doesn't allow marriage as well. I don't think the Japanese internment camps went that far. I agree the internments were unconstitutional.
Also non-mage parents can have a mage child. Templars would have to find out about the child to take claim of it. Reading the books and playing the games have painted a picture that not every parent turned over their child. There were plenty of mages operating outside the circle.
Well, if every single one of your ancestors for a century was a mage, that still wouldn't get you consigned to the tower. You have to actually be capable of working spells (and thus a potentially epic disaster if you ever get possessed) yourself.
Yeah, that's a valid point. I totally agree with you. Having an ancestor who was mage is one thing but being a mage is another especially in the worlds of Thedas. I guess we need to consider mages as a 5th race, like the mutants in X-Men movies, in order to make these two things more comparable. But that's an analogy which often leads to a leap of logic. 
Sooo... I suppose it's a bad analogy then. 
Well, if every single one of your ancestors for a century was a mage, that still wouldn't get you consigned to the tower. You have to actually be capable of working spells (and thus a potentially epic disaster if you ever get possessed) yourself.
Not only that, you actually have to have some meaningful level of power.
Ridiculously weak mages are only monitored, not brought into Circles
True. This system is worst. This system goes one step further. The mages are not just segregated. They are property of the Chantry. If they have a baby, the baby is taken away. It doesn't allow marriage as well. I don't think the Japanese internment camps went that far. I agree the internments were unconstitutional.
False.
Mages are NOT property of the Chantry.
The Child is taken away for it's safety.
It discourages marriage, but there is no actual law against it. (Mages CAN marry)
The Circles allow marriage..
Not only that, you actually have to have some meaningful level of power.
Ridiculously weak mages are only monitored, not brought into Circles
False.
Mages are NOT property of the Chantry.
The Child is taken away for it's safety.
It discourages marriage, but there is no actual law against it. (Mages CAN marry)
You read the book asunder? No they don't allow marriage and they take your child away. The child doesn't belong to you. It was also stated that even a person with the slightest sign of magic was taken by the Templar.
The Circles allow marriage..
You are correct to question. It doesn't allow marriage. Any sexual relationship is done in secret. That is why so many Mages talked about the Ghost in the tower (Asunder). They were sneaking around to have sexual relationships.
The Circle doesn't remind me of the Japanese camps. It does remind me of the Asylums. The worst being the now famous Pennhurst Asylum. Tranquils remind me of the prefrontal lobotomy procedures.
Swords and other sharp, pointy, stabby things cause a lot of problems too. Thedas needs to start locking up those terrible, obviously malicious buggers!
Guys srsly, we need to come up with a better analogy than "magic is like pointy things."
You are correct to question. It doesn't allow marriage. Any sexual relationship is done in secret. That is why so many Mages talked about the Ghost in the tower (Asunder). They were sneaking around to have sexual relationships.
That is entirely incorrect. The Circles DOES allow marriages. It frowns upon sexual relations since, in an age before reliable contraceptions, it usually results in conception of a child. And since the Circle is no place for a child to grow up....
We've already had this discussion with Gaider. Your own perceptions about the Circle was debunked years ago, when this topic first came up..
Yeah, that's a valid point. I totally agree with you. Having an ancestor who was mage is one thing but being a mage is another especially in the worlds of Thedas. I guess we need to consider mages as a 5th race, like the mutants in X-Men movies, in order to make these two things more comparable. But that's an analogy which often leads to a leap of logic.
Sooo... I suppose it's a bad analogy then.
Race refers to a person's physical appearance, such as skin color, eye color, hair color, bone/jaw structure etc.
Mages have the same appearance as us and therefore 5 race doesn't make sense. How about recessive gene?
It was also stated that even a person with the slightest sign of magic was taken by the Templar.
Not exactly true, From WOT -
"Chantry law requires those with significant magical ability to join the nearest Circle and live under its supervision. While Thedosians with extremely low levels of magical talent are generally permitted to go about their lives, they are still closely watched."
That is entirely incorrect. The Circles DOES allow marriages. It frowns upon sexual relations since, in an age before reliable contraceptions, it usually results in conception of a child. And since the Circle is no place for a child to grow up....
We've already had this discussion with Gaider. Your own perceptions about the Circle was debunked years ago, when this topic first came up..
That is not what Asunder said.
What married couple did you find in the circle? Why was Wynne's baby taken? Did you read Asunder? Why did Hawk's dad leave the circle?
Guys srsly, we need to come up with a better analogy than "magic is like pointy things."
Magic is like pointy thing...ON FIRE!!!!
Race refers to a person's physical appearance, such as skin color, eye color, hair color, bone/jaw structure etc.
That's a lot of races we have.
That's a lot of races we have.
That is just the definition. They group characteristics common in a race. Mages do not look different and X-Men do.
Retour en haut