true but whats catching fire?
Sequel to the Hunger Games.
Phillip Seymour Hoffman is a plant by the revolutionaries in the villains' government and his advice to the President is to constantly increase the brutality and severity of his punishments as well as how public they are.
Despite the amount of suffering this causes, it feeds his cause, while also playing to the sadism of the President and his tyrannical impulses.
never read the hunger games but from the description seems very similar to the current situationSequel to the Hunger Games. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is a plant by the revolutionaries in the villains' government and his advice to the President is to constantly increase the brutality and severity of his punishments as well as how public they are.Despite the amount of suffering this causes, it feeds his cause, while also playing to the sadism of the President and his tyrannical impulses.
Inqusitor: Peace? We shall have peace... We shall have peace, when you answer for the burning of Kirkwall, and the children that lie dead there! We shall have peace, when the lives of the mages whose bodies were hewn even as they died against the gates of the Circle, are avenged! When you hang from a gibbit for the sport of your own crows...! We shall have peace.
Josephine: Much better reply!
Inquisitor: You're right. No, I'm coming to kill you wasn't poetic enough for addressing Lambert's forces.
I wasn't sure whether this was aimed at Templars or Mage insurrectionists and agitators until you name-dropped Lambert.
I wasn't sure whether this was aimed at Templars or Mage insurrectionists and agitators until you name-dropped Lambert.
I was tempted to do a generic one.
Ending with Lambert/Fiona's forces.
:-)
Bonus points for channeling your inner Theoden.Inqusitor: Peace? We shall have peace... We shall have peace, when you answer for the burning of Kirkwall, and the children that lie dead there! We shall have peace, when the lives of the mages whose bodies were hewn even as they died against the gates of the Circle, are avenged! When you hang from a gibbit for the sport of your own crows...! We shall have peace.
Josephine: Much better reply!
Inquisitor: You're right. No, I'm coming to kill you wasn't poetic enough for addressing Lambert's forces.
Absolutely not. The point of a roleplaying game isn't to try to iron out every conflict, run every chore and appease every NPC. The point of a roleplaying game is to roleplay. Roleplay a character who has their own convictions and morality and values. A character that has a defined stance on a international crisis in Thedas.
There should be no easy or comfortable choices in DAI. Those kinds of choices are bad RPG design. They don't promote roleplaying, they just promote narcissistic completionism.
Absolutely not. The point of a roleplaying game isn't to try to iron out every conflict, run every chore and appease every NPC. The point of a roleplaying game is to roleplay. Roleplay a character who has their own convictions and morality and values. A character that has a defined stance on a international crisis in Thedas.
There should be no easy or comfortable choices in DAI. Those kinds of choices are bad RPG design. They don't promote roleplaying, they just promote narcissistic completionism.
This.
Absolutely not. The point of a roleplaying game isn't to try to iron out every conflict, run every chore and appease every NPC. The point of a roleplaying game is to roleplay. Roleplay a character who has their own convictions and morality and values. A character that has a defined stance on a international crisis in Thedas.
There should be no easy or comfortable choices in DAI. Those kinds of choices are bad RPG design. They don't promote roleplaying, they just promote narcissistic completionism.
On the other hand, the Quarian Geth NON-PEACE option was kind of ham-fisted too.
"If one side loses, it dies out forever!"
In real-life, most wars end up with one side or another "winning" but the other side carrying on while being exceptionally irritated about it.
I'm kind of hoping you can go for what the "isolationists" of the mages wanted. Mages cant live free in normal society, they are simply too powerful and too many of them turn into crazy demons.
A good way to solve this problem would be to give them a land/island/large rock to themselves, that way when something goes wrong its only other mages who have to deal with it, also giving mages their freedom. Families and friends can go with the mages to this place, but mages are forced to leave.
Everyones happy.
On the other hand, the Quarian Geth NON-PEACE option was kind of ham-fisted too.
"If one side loses, it dies out forever!"
In real-life, most wars end up with one side or another "winning" but the other side carrying on while being exceptionally irritated about it.
You could have peace in the Quarian Geth war? its the only way I have ever played that conflict through. The geth help the Quarian rebuild their homeworld, legion dies to make all the geth AI, everyones happy.
What are you talking about.
I'm kind of hoping you can go for what the "isolationists" of the mages wanted. Mages cant live free in normal society, they are simply too powerful and too many of them turn into crazy demons.
A good way to solve this problem would be to give them a land/island/large rock to themselves, that way when something goes wrong its only other mages who have to deal with it, also giving mages their freedom. Families and friends can go with the mages to this place, but mages are forced to leave.
Everyones happy.
Until your children don't turn out to be mages and the cycle begins again.
Until your children don't turn out to be mages and the cycle begins again.
How so? kids who aren't mages can leave the island if they want or stay, much like friends and family. They simply cant leave if they are a mage.
How so? kids who aren't mages can leave the island if they want or stay, much like friends and family. They simply cant leave if they are a mage.
Because most people don't like being told to leave their family and friends with their clothes on their backs. Life doesn't work that way.
Because most people don't like being told to leave their family and friends with their clothes on their backs. Life doesn't work that way.
But they don't have to leave their friends and family as I said couple of times? They can go with said mage friend/family to the place of isolation. They can take their stuff with them as well. Its a good middle ground between the circle and absolute freedom, neither of which seem to work.
after reading all of the comments it gets me thinking....
if a guy holds a sword, it doesnt always mean he will always stab random people. The same with mages, not all will want to torch your houses or dance naked under the moonlight.
Punish those who do stab people, and punish those who do summon demons etc. But let the innocent people be.
You could have peace in the Quarian Geth war? its the only way I have ever played that conflict through. The geth help the Quarian rebuild their homeworld, legion dies to make all the geth AI, everyones happy.
What are you talking about.
Oh, you never met racist Shepard.
Racist Shepard lets the Hanar and Dren die
He makes sure the Genophage continues to devastate the Krogan
He kills Wrex
Kills the Rachni
He makes it so the Alien members of the Squadron all die
He lets the Geth win
Then he destroys the Geth and Edi with the Destroy ending
He uses Multiplayer to make up the lost War Assets.
I assume he becomes President of Earth since he survives in that ending too and proceeds to work against the Asari and Turian remnants.
:-)
Absolutely not. The point of a roleplaying game isn't to try to iron out every conflict, run every chore and appease every NPC. The point of a roleplaying game is to roleplay. Roleplay a character who has their own convictions and morality and values. A character that has a defined stance on a international crisis in Thedas.
There should be no easy or comfortable choices in DAI. Those kinds of choices are bad RPG design. They don't promote roleplaying, they just promote narcissistic completionism.
I agree with this. One thing i never liked about the Dragon Age (and Mass Effect) games, that there were almost always "wrong" and "right" decisions.(or good and bad) For example the werewolves-elves choice in Origins. There are three possible choices but two of them are pointless. Why should anybody choose to not save both? It's hardly even a decision. I prefer when you have to choose between one evil and another, while the game doesn't ' show you with a big red arrow which of the choices is the lesser evil.
after reading all of the comments it gets me thinking....
if a guy holds a sword, it doesnt always mean he will always stab random people. The same with mages, not all will want to torch your houses or dance naked under the moonlight.
Punish those who do stab people, and punish those who do summon demons etc. But let the innocent people be.
Except its more extreme than holding a sword. A real world equivalent would be people born with Uzi's for hands AND a 50% chance of developing paranoid schizophrenia, its about inconveniencing people who can do MASSIVE damage at the cost of some of their rights.
A guy with a sword can stab a few people sure, but a guy with a sword can be overwhelmed by a mob or beaten by another guy with a sword. Mages can wipe out towns and its not even their fault, look at Merediths sisters story.
I agree with this. One thing i never liked about the Dragon Age (and Mass Effect) games, that there were almost always "wrong" and "right" decisions.(or good and bad) For example the werewolves-elves choice in Origins. There are three possible choices but two of them are pointless. Why should anybody choose to not save both? It's hardly even a decision. I prefer when you have to choose between one evil and another, while the game doesn't ' show you with a big red arrow which of the choices is the lesser evil.
Bhelen vs Harrowmont (before the epilogue)? Vigils keep or Amarathene? The architect lives or dies?
But they don't have to leave their friends and family as I said couple of times? They can go with said mage friend/family to the place of isolation. They can take their stuff with them as well. Its a good middle ground between the circle and absolute freedom, neither of which seem to work.
I don't think you actually understand what I'm saying. Being a mage doesn't mean you'll have a magical child. These children will group up in a world where being the odd ones out will make you an outcast and an easy target. It will not work. They can't just leave, financial and emotional reasons will prevent that, and they can't stay, they'll never be able to compete with anyone else. It's a lose-lose.
Except its more extreme than holding a sword. A real world equivalent would be people born with Uzi's for hands AND a 50% chance of developing paranoid schizophrenia, its about inconveniencing people who can do MASSIVE damage at the cost of some of their rights.
The averages aren't quite that severe. It's also much worse.
Most mages will never be demon-possessed.
However, 1 out of a 100 who do can do an incredible amount of damage.
Also, aside from the non-demon possessed are the fact people in Thedas are greedy evil bastards. A mage can do a lot more damage than any human with a sword.
Look at the Baroness.
She's the worst elements of Thedas combined--a Blood Mage AND Orlaisian.
I agree with this. One thing i never liked about the Dragon Age (and Mass Effect) games, that there were almost always "wrong" and "right" decisions.(or good and bad) For example the werewolves-elves choice in Origins. There are three possible choices but two of them are pointless. Why should anybody choose to not save both? It's hardly even a decision. I prefer when you have to choose between one evil and another, while the game doesn't ' show you with a big red arrow which of the choices is the lesser evil.
I never choose the perfect option specifically because I just pretend that there isn't a nice option.
The averages aren't quite that severe. It's also much worse.
Most mages will never be demon-possessed.However, 1 out of a 100 who do can do an incredible amount of damage.
Source? Every. Single. Mage. You meet in Kirkwall except yourself or Bethany ends up being a bloodmage, necromancer, abomination or consults with demons.
Orsino himself, seem as the bastion of "sane" mages ends up having "accidently" learned how to turn himself into a bloody Harvester.
Bhelen vs Harrowmont (before the epilogue)? Vigils keep or Amarathene? The architect lives or dies?
The problem with all the mentioned choices was, that they didn't have any consequences in the game. You get a small mention in the epilogue what happens to orzammar and vigil's keep/amarathene depending on your choice. Same for the architect (maybe in inquisition, but i doubt it). There are no consequences for the further story depending on your choice.
I don't think you actually understand what I'm saying. Being a mage doesn't mean you'll have a magical child. These children will group up in a world where being the odd ones out will make you an outcast and an easy target. It will not work. They can't just leave, financial and emotional reasons will prevent that, and they can't stay, they'll never be able to compete with anyone else. It's a lose-lose.
Chantry scholarships for those who wish to leave? if its emotional reasons then its on their heads not the system. Leave and visit your folks if you don't want to live in isolation but cant live without them. I imagine the port/nearest town would become quite the trade center given what mages offer the rest of the world in the form of enchantment and potions, dont want to be an outcast go live there?
Retour en haut