954 réponses à ce sujet

[displayname]

in the end mages can never be wiped why cause even if you kill all living mages.more will be just be born cause  their after all mages are born not made,but templars on the other hand can be wiped an erased from the history books which i cant wait to kill those filthy templars.

And I bet you'll do it as a Blood Mage too. Filthy mage. 

 

This is the issue that I have with the whole Mage and Templar issue. Due to Gaiders use of allusion to other real world "identities and beliefs" there is no real way for either true peace or true conflict to occur without vilifying either Mages as the Tevinter loving imperialists they all are, or the Templars as some form of authoritarian boogy-man there to chase down poor little blight spawns forcing them to all be Anders tier terrorists. There is no ground for actual peace, which is a severe determent to the series. Mages will side with the Chantry/Templars, just as Templars have sided with Mages.

 

And for your point: Children identified as Mages could be made tranquil as a means of control by Templars.

[Grieving Natashina]

And I bet you'll do it as a Blood Mage too. Filthy mage. 

 

No blood mage spec for the players in Inquisition.  

[Xilizhra]

No blood mage spec for the players in Inquisition.  

Regrettably. I don't have the chance to truly give the templars what they've earned.

[Grieving Natashina]

Regrettably. I don't have the chance to truly give the templars what they've earned.

Take heart, there's always necromancy.  Nothing like raising a few of their dead to get a Templar's attention.  Think of it this way: You can use the corpses of their fallen against them.  It's poetic justice.  

 

_{For the record, still not pro-mage or pro-templar, but I do have a sense of humor.}

[DrBlingzle]

No blood mage spec for the players in Inquisition.

I think a dev said we can do blood magic in DA:I and it would have a bigger effect this time, it's just not going to be a specialization by itself. Can't find the quote ATM, I'll get it soon.

[Altima Darkspells]

Take heart, there's always necromancy.  Nothing like raising a few of their dead to get a Templar's attention.  Think of it this way: You can use the corpses of their fallen against them.  It's poetic justice.  
 
_{For the record, still not pro-mage or pro-templar, but I do have a sense of humor.}

Because there's really no undead in Thedas, at least not in the classic RPG sort of sense, what a Necromancer would actually be doing is summoning low-level demons (usually hunger or rage) to infest the corpses.

So a necromancer would be feeding the Templar to demons.

Which is kinda even more poetic justice.

I wonder why they didn't name the Necromancer specialization as Maleficar.

[Dean_the_Young]

The structure doesn't matter. It's still a prison they're confined to where they're expected to produce a stream of magical goods. As for economic domination, do you really believe that the profits go back to the Circle? More than likely they're claimed by the local Chantry.

Nah, this is incorrect as a matter of lore. Gaider's voiced in on it: the mages aren't forced to work, and the profits go to the Circles and not the Chantry.

 

The Chantry would be the provider of last resort obviously, but the Circles are self-financing in most respects. The Chantry pays for the Templars, obviously.

 

 

Edit: NVM, I see JB beat me to it.

[Grieving Natashina]

I think a dev said we can do blood magic in DA:I and it would have a bigger effect this time, it's just not going to be a specialization by itself. Can't find the quote ATM, I'll get it soon.

This is all I could find on blood magic for Inquisition:

 

http://www.ausgamers...es/read/3432915

 

AusGamers: In the previous games player characters were always capable of using Blood Magic but that seems counter to the role of a head inquisitor. Will Blood Magic be available to the player character? If it is, how will that impact the world? 

 

Cameron: Blood magic is an interesting one. Pure blood magic in the lore of the game is really supposed to be a very evil power. In previous games it wasn't really perceived to be that way. We talked about it being that way in the lore, we'd talk about crazy mages who went down the blood magic route and how that would have nasty consequences. So in Inquisition if

we can't bring that across, that consequence across then we won't do it. We're looking at a couple of different options that still give that quasi-evil kind of fantasy element without trying to go into the nitty gritty of blood magic conflicting with other elements, but we haven't landed on which one's going to be there. 

 

So we recognise the problem and we're very cognisant of the fact that we may not be able to do blood magic, but we would

certainly replace it with something pretty bad arse. I've seen some concepts of what that could be... I personally play evil

people in games, and I've always been a blood mage, and I'd be quite happy to play these ones as well. Look ultimately the

Inquisition is something that stands apart from the Chantry, so it's not like you as a player are beholden to them or beholden

to being always good--you can be whatever you want to be. And if I want to be this bad arse necromancer kind of guy who

fiddles with the spirit world I'm going to do it, because ultimately I'm going to do what has to be done to face this threat of the

massive breach in the sky that threatens to swallow the world but also the threat of who is the puppet master behind that

and all the other events that are taking place in the world at this time. 

 

You certainly see a lot of different factions who would be able to step up and face this threat but are in a position of

weakness for a number of different reasons. So someone is clearly behind all this, and that person is our main enemy in the

game, and we have to do what we have to do. That's the loophole of the Inquisition, that they have the freedom to do w

 

 

Since we've gotten necromancy, and judging from the bolded part of the article, I think blood magic is off the table for a PC.

 

 

Because there's really no undead in Thedas, at least not in the classic RPG sort of sense, what a Necromancer would actually be doing is summoning low-level demons (usually hunger or rage) to infest the corpses.

I wonder why they didn't name the Necromancer specialization as Maleficar.

Um, necromancers can summon and control corpses.  That isn't the same as summoning demons (that's blood magic,) it's just making a dead body walk around and attack things.  

 

Maleficars are technically blood mages, so that's why that term doesn't work.  There's a reason why the Chantry makes a distinction in terms between a "malecificar" and an apostate.

[displayname]

Because there's really no undead in Thedas, at least not in the classic RPG sort of sense, what a Necromancer would actually be doing is summoning low-level demons (usually hunger or rage) to infest the corpses.

So a necromancer would be feeding the Templar to demons.

Which is kinda even more poetic justice.

I wonder why they didn't name the Necromancer specialization as Maleficar.

Because Bioware is terrible with all aspects of continuity. 

 

Also because of the above by Natashina. But its still filthy mage magic. I look forward to playing as a mage, siding with the Templars and slaughtering away all the Mages I'm allowed to in the game. 

 

Death to all Mages. The Rite of Annulment for them all. 

[Grieving Natashina]

Because Bioware is terrible with all aspects of continuity. 

 

Also because of the above by Natashina. But its still filthy mage magic. I look forward to playing as a mage, siding with the Templars and slaughtering away all the Mages I'm allowed to in the game. 

 

Death to all Mages. The Rite of Annulment for them all. 

You have fun with that.  While I know I'll probably be forced to pick a side in this idiotic and pointless war, I'm going to remain as neutral as the game will allow me.

 

I can't side 100% with either group.   Both sides are just too nuts.  

[LobselVith8]

Maleficars are technically blood mages, so that's why that term doesn't work.  There's a reason why the Chantry makes a distinction in terms between a "malecificar" and an apostate.

 

We do have examples of people using the term for mages who practice non-Circle sanctioned magic, like Alistair and Wynne referring to Morrigan as a maleficar, for example. Apparently, it's not uncommon. As the codex reads, "It is not uncommon for the neophyte to mistake apostates and maleficarum as one and the same. Indeed, the Chantry has gone to great lengths over the centuries to establish that this is so. The truth, however, is that while an apostate is often a maleficar, he need not be so. A maleficar is a mage who employs forbidden knowledge such as blood magic and the summoning of demons, whereas an apostate is merely any mage who does not fall under the auspices of the Circle of Magi (and therefore the Chantry). They are hunted by the templars, and quite often they will turn to forbidden knowledge in order to survive, but it would be a lie to say that all apostates begin that way."

[Xilizhra]

You have fun with that.  While I know I'll probably be forced to pick a side in this idiotic and pointless war, I'm going to remain as neutral as the game will allow me.

 

I can't side 100% with either group.   Both sides are just too nuts.  

Ugh. It's neither idiotic nor pointless; the templars are attacking the mages and the mages are fighting for survival.

[Grieving Natashina]

Ugh. It's neither idiotic nor pointless; the templars are attacking the mages and the mages are fighting for survival.

Eh, that's a matter of debate.  I respect your views, even if I don't agree with them.

 

I notice you didn't argue with me saying both sides were crazy though.  

[Xilizhra]

Eh, that's a matter of debate.  I respect your views, even if I don't agree with them.

 

I notice you didn't argue with me saying both sides were crazy though.  

What would you have the mages do, then?

 

And "crazy" is subjective. I don't think that either side is actually mentally unstable, I just see the templars as malevolent.

[The Elder King]

Both sides seem to have nutheads/extremist in the hinterlands. I hope to see someone more moderate then those mages/templars.

[displayname]

Ugh. It's neither idiotic nor pointless; the templars are attacking the mages and the mages are fighting for survival.

Uldred - decides he doesn't want Templars anymore, gets all Ferelden Mages killed.

Anders - Decides he doesn't want Templars anymore, blows up a chantry and forces war between Mages and Templars.

Orsino - screams about oppression, knows of Blood Magic being practiced, gets Hawkes mother killed, then goes all "Hurr .... Mage freedum....Mage Rights!" before succumbing to blood magic.

Merril - decides she wants to rebuild a mirror, resorts to Blood Magic, gets her Keeper Killed, keeps on Blood Magicing it up. 

 

You can't claim the moral high ground when its your faction causing the conflict.

 

Every Mage, Not Even Once

The Order Dictates 

[Grieving Natashina]

What would you have the mages do, then?

 

And "crazy" is subjective. I don't think that either side is actually mentally unstable, I just see the templars as malevolent.

I'm pro-Compromise hun, you know this.  You also know that I've been a huge fan of both groups actually talking to each other.  That I also think that what we've seen so far is the worse of the two groups.    

 

I think there is just as many kind hearted Templars as crazy ones.  I've also seen mages act much the same way in both respects.  Both groups have their radicals and extremists, and I think they are too busy trying to prove the other is right.  I think the war is crap because of how many ordinary folks are caught in the middle.  I think that it's time to talk, not make war.

 

All this war is going to do is get a lot of people, innocent people that are neither mage nor templar killed.  I've been called naive before, but frankly I don't care.  I'm not picking a side and every bit of EU I read strengthens that position.  

 

Again, I respect where you're coming from, but please don't expect me to take sides in this conflict anymore than what the game is going to make me do.

 

 

<snipped>

The Order Dictates 

Case in point.  You guys really expect me to take sides?  Yeah, right.  I'll be in the back.  You guys have fun with this Merry-Go-Round.

[Former_Fiend]

As a point I think that the circle is the best option; it just needs tighter oversight on the templars to keep abuse down and more liberties given to mages who've proven themselves responsible with their powers.

 

But that ship sailed because some idiot in the wardens took away Anders' cat. 

[Xilizhra]

Uldred - decides he doesn't want Templars anymore, gets all Ferelden Mages killed.

Anders - Decides he doesn't want Templars anymore, blows up a chantry and forces war between Mages and Templars.

Orsino - screams about oppression, knows of Blood Magic being practiced, gets Hawkes mother killed, then goes all "Hurr .... Mage freedum....Mage Rights!" before succumbing to blood magic.

Merril - decides she wants to rebuild a mirror, resorts to Blood Magic, gets her Keeper Killed, keeps on Blood Magicing it up. 

 

You can't claim the moral high ground when its your faction causing the conflict.

 

Every Mage, Not Even Once

The Order Dictates 

As I mentioned once before, Asunder is fun-der.

 

In any case, Uldred was rejected by the Circle, Anders and Merrill were never part of the Circle, and Orsino just botched an attempt to drive the templars back without the intent to hurt anyone else.

 

 

 

I'm pro-Compromise hun, you know this.  You also know that I've been a huge fan of both groups actually talking to each other.  That I also think that what we've seen so far is the worse of the two groups.    

 

I think there is just as many kind hearted Templars as crazy ones.  I've also seen mages act much the same way in both respects.  Both groups have their radicals and extremists, and I think they are too busy trying to prove the other is right.  I think the war is crap because of how many ordinary folks are caught in the middle.  I think that it's time to talk, not make war.

 

All this war is going to do is get a lot of people, innocent people that are neither mage nor templar killed.  I've been called naive before, but frankly I don't care.  I'm not picking a side and every bit of EU I read strengthens that position.  

 

Again, I respect where you're coming from, but please don't expect me to take sides in this conflict anymore than what the game is going to make me do.

 

 

Case in point.  You guys really expect me to take sides?  Yeah, right.  I'll be in the back.  You guys have fun with this Merry-Go-Round.

 

All right, so you think the mages should try to approach the templars diplomatically? I think that was tried in Asunder already, but if they try it and only get killed or imprisoned for their trouble? Also, why should the mages make the first move when the templars are the aggressors?

[The Elder King]

As I mentioned once before, Asunder is fun-der.
 
In any case, Uldred was rejected by the Circle, Anders and Merrill were never part of the Circle, and Orsino just botched an attempt to drive the templars back without the intent to hurt anyone else.
 
 

All right, so you think the mages should try to approach the templars diplomatically? I think that was tried in Asunder already, but if they try it and only get killed or imprisoned for their trouble? Also, why should the mages make the first move when the templars are the aggressors?

I don't think Natashina said the mages have to do the first step, though.

[Xilizhra]

I think even some mages, from what they know of the story, think of Anders as a madman. It'd be a shame that all discussion halts, because of a madman. That he's truly successful at creating that much of a rift.

Firstly, it wouldn't have stopped because of him anyway, as he had no affiliation with either the Circle or the templars; Meredith was the one who started it. Second, things still hadn't fully blown up by Asunder.

 

 

 

I don't think Natashina said the mages have to do the first step, though.

My question was "what would you have the mages do?"

[Grieving Natashina]

 

All right, so you think the mages should try to approach the templars diplomatically? I think that was tried in Asunder already, but if they try it and only get killed or imprisoned for their trouble? Also, why should the mages make the first move when the templars are the aggressors?

I'm not getting into this yet again Xil.  You've seen my posts on the subject before and I'm not going to be convinced that all templars are evil anymore than I will believe that all mages need to be killed.  

 

I'll state this simply, since you did ask: I think there needs to be a place that isn't either a mage or a templar stronghold where both sides are sitting down and having negotiations.  We have non-templar warriors and rogues standing by, and all weapons should be checked at the door.  The second someone sees a mage casting or a templar being aggressive, a guard for the meeting disables them.  

 

In short, I guess I would trust that, in the right circumstances, both mages and templars can be the adults I know they are and not the boogymen/evil children that some think about all mages or all templars.

 

Let's just agree to disagree, please.

 

@Elder: Thanks for noticing that.  

[AresKeith]

Ugh. It's neither idiotic nor pointless; the templars are attacking the mages and the mages are fighting for survival.

 

Both sides seems to be harming civilians also

 

that seems idiotic