954 réponses à ce sujet

[Grieving Natashina]

I'm sorry, who? I have no clue who that is.

When I googled "bandits in Act 3," I just found this quest: http://dragonage.wik...Needs_Rescuing?

 

Nothing about a named bandit though.

[thetinyevil]

I'm sorry, who? I have no clue who that is.

Sorry Fell Orden

http://dragonage.wik...wiki/Fell_Orden

[DrBlingzle]

 

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

 

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

 

 

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.

Damn, I could of sworn I saw something saying we could. Ah well, wouldnt be the first time I've tricked myself.

[The Elder King]

On the Darmsuid (Rivaini Circle) Annulment, isn't it Annulled after the breakout between mages and templars in Asunder? Because I recall it was mentioned when the mages were in Andoral's Reach.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Yeah. I am curious about this as well.

 

Mind you, Bioware have never been very good at the whole "waging war" in their games. Just look at Cerberus of Mass Effect and you will see what I mean. 

 

I mean I am pro mage and I have no ill will towards the elves but how exactly are they going to fight their opponents and win without any support ? Mages have to fight templars and red templars. Elves have to fight humans and perhaps even have to deal with the fact that they might not get support from the Dalish. 

 

Eluvian and spells can only go so far in making a force powerful. 

 

Perhaps this is where in Inquisition comes in I think. Each faction will be looking to cozy up to you and get your support since you can close the tears and will have a sizable army with you in order to secure their position.

[DrBlingzle]

I kind of think that the best chance for peace is by stopping the extremists on both sides. Both sides seem to have powerful extremists and aggressors who not only started but are accelerating the war, while many (perhaps even the majority) of their faction would take a more moderate stance and be open to compromise and peace. (Asunder spoiler):

Spoiler

Indeed, at the end of asunder most of the fraternities voted for submission and peace rather than war. And I think the Aequitarians only voted for war because they saw it as the only real option, so I think if a decent chance for peace came up they would be open to it.

My (ideal) plan would be to remove these powerful aggressors from power either by assassination or other means and then replace them with more moderate individuals.

The biggest difficulty with this is that many of the powerful moderates in both factions probably would of been at the peace conference at the beginning of DA:I (y'know the one that got blown up) meaning that extremists on both sides would probably have much more power. But hey if my inquisitor stopped trying to do what he believed in just because it got more difficult he wouldn't be much of a hero.

 

But, as I said before, I doubt I'll be able to do this precisely, simply down to all the different methods bioware will have to do if they want to allow every fan to follow their ideal plan .

[thetinyevil]

crap delet my post please

[EmperorSahlertz]

On the Darmsuid (Rivaini Circle) Annulment, isn't it Annulled after the breakout between mages and templars in Asunder? Because I recall it was mentioned when the mages were in Andoral's Reach.

I'm pretty sure that the annulment happened before the outbreak of hostilities, and added to the growing tension between Templars and mages. Aren't 100% sure though.

[Ap0state]

Americans don't rain down fire and brimstone and are not vulnerable to be infected by demons. 

 

 
Debatable, but I don't think real world politics are appropriate here.

[The Elder King]

I'm pretty sure that the annulment happened before the outbreak of hostilities, and added to the growing tension between Templars and mages. Aren't 100% sure though.

Yeah, I checked and it wasn't at the end of the book.

[Ap0state]

Do you not understand the capabilities of walking WMDs and the probability of escalation?

 

 

Yep with good ole fashioned American Technological Superiority.  

If you have walking WMD's maybe a good way to treat them is with respect, rather than brutal suppression? The templar-supporter comparison of 'ideal world where we suppress them and everyone lives peacefully' vs 'mages are free and go around killing people' is utterly disingenous.

The real comparative is 'mages are free and go around killing people' vs 'what is happening currently'. 

There is no moral justification for imprisoning mages, and if you want to go for the pragmatic justification that mages are dangerous, than you have to accept that the consequence will be wars like this when people who are walking bombs decide they don't like being imprisoned.

[Ap0state]

Yeah. I am curious about this as well.

 

Mind you, Bioware have never been very good at the whole "waging war" in their games. Just look at Cerberus of Mass Effect and you will see what I mean. 

 

I mean I am pro mage and I have no ill will towards the elves but how exactly are they going to fight their opponents and win without any support ? Mages have to fight templars and red templars. Elves have to fight humans and perhaps even have to deal with the fact that they might not get support from the Dalish. 

 

Eluvian and spells can only go so far in making a force powerful. 

 

Perhaps this is where in Inquisition comes in I think. Each faction will be looking to cozy up to you and get your support since you can close the tears and will have a sizable army with you in order to secure their position.

They are walking WMD's right? That's what the templar supporters say. Don't see how that can be reconciled with 'they have no chance'. It's just not consistent that you're justification for imprisoning them is that they are SO dangerous; and then your logic is also that there is no need to treat them with respect in case they rebel, because if they do rebel they can be promptly suppressed.

[Dean_the_Young]

If you have walking WMD's maybe a good way to treat them is with respect, rather than brutal suppression? The templar-supporter comparison of 'ideal world where we suppress them and everyone lives peacefully' vs 'mages are free and go around killing people' is utterly disingenous.

The real comparative is 'mages are free and go around killing people' vs 'what is happening currently'. 

There is no moral justification for imprisoning mages, and if you want to go for the pragmatic justification that mages are dangerous, than you have to accept that the consequence will be wars like this when people who are walking bombs decide they don't like being imprisoned.

 

 

They explode, and demonstrate they are, in fact, bombs?

 

A practical justification can in and of itself be a moral justification for people whose morality is based on what is achievable rather than utopian ideals. A practical justification for enforcing separation between dangers to the public and the public can itself be a moral justification. Bombs exploding is the presumption behind the need for the division- an effort to divert where the bomb explodes.

 

A predictable cycle, to be sure, but not a particularly compelling reason to let people-bombs with everyone else. Arguing so would confuses cause with effect. They aren't walking bombs because they are treated as such. They are treated as such because they are walking bombs in the first place, and would be even if they were not treated as such. The condition brings the consideration, not vice versa.

[Dean_the_Young]

They are walking WMD's right? That's what the templar supporters say. Don't see how that can be reconciled with 'they have no chance'. It's just not consistent that you're justification for imprisoning them is that they are SO dangerous; and then your logic is also that there is no need to treat them with respect in case they rebel, because if they do rebel they can be promptly suppressed.

 

That's because most WMDs aren't actually decisive weapons in most conflicts they have been used in. People hear WMD and think 'nuke', when most WMDs are nowhere near that level.

 

Mages are WMD analogies by virtue of the power and insanity boost of becoming abominations, and even then only on the scale of chemical or early biological weapons, not nukes. Chemical and  biological weapons are potentially very lethal, but also very context-sensitive. Their effect depends on many circumstances and conditions, and with specialized preparations they can be protected or guarded against. A small chemical weapon attack against an unprepared civilian neighborhood can destroy it and see it become a ghost town- a large scale chemical weapons attack against an army can be routinely endured despite the casualties.

 

To give a historical example besides WW1, the Iran-Iraq War saw Iraq use chemical and even nerve agents on a massive scale. Low-ball estimates place Iran at 50,000 casualties to those weapons alone, with most placing it two or three times higher. And yet... Iran was winning the war in many respects, despite Iraq's use of WMDs. Truly phenomenal numbers of people were being killed by WMDs, and it was not a decisive weapon.

 

Having a WMD doesn't win a war, especially when countermeasures exist. The Templars are that countermeasure, well established and trained to counter the higher WMD potential of mages (abominations) but also the much lower danger potential (non-abominations). It won't be the mages ability to use magic or become an abomination alone that would win a war.

 

They can simultaneously be capable of much destruction and yet militarily doomed. The difference is in the deathtoll of those least prepared for the costs- not the Templars, but the civilians in the middle.

[Ap0state]

They explode, and demonstrate they are, in fact, bombs?

 

A practical justification can in and of itself be a moral justification for people whose morality is based on what is achievable rather than utopian ideals. A practical justification for enforcing separation between dangers to the public and the public can itself be a moral justification. Bombs exploding is the presumption behind the need for the division- an effort to divert where the bomb explodes.

 

A predictable cycle, to be sure, but not a particularly compelling reason to let people-bombs with everyone else. Arguing so would confuses cause with effect. They aren't walking bombs because they are treated as such. They are treated as such because they are walking bombs in the first place, and would be even if they were not treated as such. The condition brings the consideration, not vice versa.

My point is that a practical justification needs to take into account the ACTUAL consequence of imprisonment, and not just the intended consequence for it to be moral. It's not moral or practical if you just randomly assume the mages won't do anything about being suppressed, because that assumption is flawed and doesn't reflect the real practical consequence of imprisonment, which is the war that is currently going on. 

Also, I wasn't acknowledging that they were 'walking bombs', my point was that if that was the power level one ascribes to them, it's silly to assume they cannot or will not be effective in a battle. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that they don't all go crazy for no reason. To be sure, some might, but the right solution is to deal with that as it happens, and tell innocent mundanes 'too bad' rather than imprison mages and tell innocent mages 'too bad'.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Yeah.... Given free education, housing, food and protection. THE HUMANITY!

[Xilizhra]

Yeah.... Given free education, housing, food and protection. THE HUMANITY!

And all they need to do is avoid being murdered or having their minds ripped apart... and those are only the official punishments.

[Ap0state]

Yeah.... Given free education, housing, food and protection. THE HUMANITY!

None of which was necessary. The Romans gave the same to their slaves.

[Dean_the_Young]

My point is that a practical justification needs to take into account the ACTUAL consequence of imprisonment, and not just the intended consequence for it to be moral. It's not moral or practical if you just randomly assume the mages won't do anything about being suppressed, because that assumption is flawed and doesn't reflect the real practical consequence of imprisonment, which is the war that is currently going on.

 

I think most Templars, and Templar supporters, understand and accept that an inherent cost of the Circle system is that mages, as the most restricted, will be the most opposed and inclined to resist it. It's an accepted consequence, not one that comes by surprise.

 

Also, I wasn't acknowledging that they were 'walking bombs', my point was that if that was the power level one ascribes to them, it's silly to assume they cannot or will not be effective in a battle. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that they don't all go crazy for no reason.

 

That level of power doesn't make someone effective in battle, though. There's a reason why the overwhelmingly vast majority of insurgents in the world don't go to battle in a suicide vest- and even the ones who do, such as suicide mission attacks of bases, very rarely get a chance to use their vests.

 

When it comes to the actual battle aptitude of mages, it's even less stable. The vast majority of mage abilities can be outright nullified by Templars. The ones that can't are blood magic and abominationhood (which is the WMD analogy). The first is potent, but not a war winner and is political kryptonite. The later is highly variable, extremely unstable, and is as unreliable as it is dangerous.

 

The craziness isn't the factor of concern for the warfare. Magic alone isn't going to be decisive, on or off the battlefield. It will be other things that enable a mage success.
 

 

To be sure, some might, but the right solution is to deal with that as it happens, and tell innocent mundanes 'too bad' rather than imprison mages and tell innocent mages 'too bad'.

 

Considering how many innocent but dead mundanes there can be from a single bad mage outbreak (high double to triple digits), and how few mages there are, why would anyone but the mages believe this is the 'right' solution?

 

Innocent mundanes who are killed as a matter of cost are dead. Innocent mages who are imprisoned as a matter of cost are highly inconvenienced. On the scale of harm, most forms of justice and ethics would favor the greater harm.

[Who Knows]

Mages need to be educated considering they are inherently at risk of losing control in some form and being a much greater danger than your average joe with a sword.

 

Yes, there are some mages who manage to learn by themselves, but they are the exception.

[Ap0state]

 

 

Considering how many innocent but dead mundanes there can be from a single bad mage outbreak (high double to triple digits), and how few mages there are, why would anyone but the mages believe this is the 'right' solution?

 

Innocent mundanes who are killed as a matter of cost are dead. Innocent mages who are imprisoned as a matter of cost are highly inconvenienced. On the scale of harm, most forms of justice and ethics would favor the greater harm.

Again, you're making the wrong comparison. The comparison isn't 'oppressed mages v safe mundanes' the comparison is 'possible world war vs safe mundanes'. Again you're not acknowledging that the real pragmatic cost isn't the oppressed mages (bad enough) but the LARGER number of mundanes and others who will be killed when the mages rise up. I'm saying the number of mundanes killed in/as a result of this war will be more than those that may have been killed in isolated rampages (which still happen anyway despite the Circles, because it's UNTRAINED mages who do that, and arguably half the reason they remain untrained is precisely because the alternative is imprisonment).

[EmperorSahlertz]

And all they need to do is avoid being murdered or having their minds ripped apart... and those are only the official punishments.

There is NOTHING that indicates the murder rate amongst mages is any bigger than anywhere else in Thedas, so that is a useless point to try and argue.

 

And if you are referring to the Rite of Tranquility, it is done for a reason, and is often offered as a CHOICE for the apprentice.

 

Compared to the peasants of Thedas, who has to toil and labor the entire year for no gain of their own, the mages lead a life of absolute luxury only rivaled by the nobles.

[DrBlingzle]

Yeah.... Given free education, housing, food and protection. THE HUMANITY!

Yeah I think many mage supporters overlook this. The average citizen in Thedas will be a peasant and will have no education and very poor housing and food. However I still don't think that excuses the general oppression forced on them and their situation could be improved through no extra cost.

[Dean_the_Young]

Again, you're making the wrong comparison. The comparison isn't 'oppressed mages v safe mundanes' the comparison is 'possible world war vs safe mundanes'.

False delimma as well. There are possible world war scenarios with free mages as well. In fact, the internationalization and de-factionalization of the mages is one of the big successes of the Circle system.

 

 

Again you're not acknowledging that the real pragmatic cost isn't the oppressed mages (bad enough) but the LARGER number of mundanes and others who will be killed when the mages rise up.

 

The costs to mundanes under the Circle system would be compared to the cost of mundanes when there is no Circle system at all. We have no statistical comparison, but we do know that the Thedasian experience of unrestrained mages allowed to integrate or rise above society has led to a majority of Thedas to prefer social exclusion of mages to social integration and potential ascent of a mageocracy.

 

 

 

 

I'm saying the number of mundanes killed in/as a result of this war will be more than those that may have been killed in isolated rampages (which still happen anyway despite the Circles, because it's UNTRAINED mages who do that, and arguably half the reason they remain untrained is precisely because the alternative is imprisonment).

 

You've also provided no support for this claim of comparative deaths, or how these costs would not also occur in equal or greater measure without the Circle system, or even acknowledging the other costs of free mages which are a real concern to non-mages.

[Grieving Natashina]

Good morning guys.  It's the new mage/templar debate thread, so I'm back with the coffee.