3241 réponses à ce sujet

[raging_monkey]

It worked out fine during the qunari invasion and the blights mages have been involved in. I didn't see any of the circle mages turning into abominations during the fall of ostagar and I don't recall any from the gallows except for Orsino and that was more a magic ritual that produced an undead then an abomination. We haven't even seen any of the mages from the Imperium turn into abominations even during losing combat situations. I'll take my chances. I believe the risk are grossly exaggerated and if I'm lucky and they do turn they'll be more interested in the enemy soldiers then mine or I can turn my remaining mages or ballista on them.

ive noticed that trying to reason with TKS or Z on the benifits of magi is exercise in futility

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Mounts

 

Scroll down to see an image of it... it's basically an undead horse with a sword shoved through its head..

 

edit:  Whoops... somehow I got ninja'd... by a quote within my own post???

And you came very close to doing the same to me.

[Willowhugger]

I foresee the one being a cross between a "Nug and a Water buffalo" being my favorite.

Yes, I want to have my Inquisitor ride Appa.

 

[raging_monkey]

Fear me templars and demons for i ride a buffalo... and when it dies ill make wings

[Inprea]

ive noticed that trying to reason with TKS or Z on the benifits of magi is exercise in futility

 

You're probably right.

[Master Warder Z_]

Yes, I want to have my Inquisitor ride Appa.

 

No.

[Master Warder Z_]

You're probably right.

 

How so?

 

I acknowledge mages can be useful during war, but given we have a very limited amount of knowledge involving major conflict involving multiple mages, i am also hesitant to assume that none fell to temptation during battle, that their will shattered when they were exposed to the rigors of war.

 

.-. Beyond that gameplay limitations have also sort of neutered the notion involving the possibility of abominations even occurring in battle outside of a few specific occurrences

 

I tend to take lore over gamplay given that Gaider has been saying for years, gameplay would be more akin to lore if they had more "resources." 

 

But anyway, even gameplay limited as it is has shown us that abominations can come from mages who are exposed to the rigor of combat.

 

For me the usage of mages is a risk versus reward argument; Potentially they can be quite useful, but potentially they can ultimately end up costing you just as much as they can make you.

 

Like Gambling.

 

 

.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Umm...right. 

 

So the Tranquil who tells her former lover in Act 2 that she belongs to ser Alrik now was exercising the sense of humor that tranquil are famous for?

 

Right, cause DA2 is the best source for dragon age content. All mages are blood magic users. All templars are insane law breakers. And all the qunari are shirtless. Why? Cause it was in DA2.

 

There's no reason also for the Tranquil to obey the Circle, Chantry, or anyone else other than Ser Alrik.
The rite doesn't impose loyalty.

 

So the rite doesn't install loyalty, except the loyalty to the person who made them tranquil? Que? Come again?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

For me the usage of mages is a risk versus reward argument; Potentially they can be quite useful, but potentially they can ultimately end up costing you just as much as they can make you.

 

Like Gambling.

Gambling carefully can be a good move.

[raging_monkey]

How so? I acknowledge mages can be useful during war, but given we have a very limited amount of knowledge involving major conflict involving multiple mages, i am also hesitant to assume that none fell to temptation during battle, that their will shattered when they were exposed to the rigors of war. .-. Beyond that gameplay limitations have also sort of neutered the notion involving the possibility of abominations even occurring in battle outside of a few specific occurrences I tend to take lore over gamplay given that Gaider has been saying for years, gameplay would be more akin to lore if they had more "resources."  But anyway, even gameplay limited as it is has shown us that abominations can come from mages who are exposed to the rigor of combat. For me the usage of mages is a risk versus reward argument; Potentially they can be quite useful, but potentially they can ultimately end up costing you just as much as they can make you. Like Gambling.  .

but your overly harsh in your treatment of magi. You occasionally come across as magephobic which makes it hard to gauge your arguement. I understand some of your arguements but sometimes they are very emotional

[Cainhurst Crow]

but your overly harsh in your treatment of magi. You occasionally come across as magephobic which makes it hard to gauge your arguement. I understand some of your arguements but sometimes they are very emotional

Magephobic...this fandom needs to be put to the torch.

[raging_monkey]

Magephobic...this fandom needs to be put to the torch.

i agree with that at times. * hands lit torch*

[Inprea]

How so?

 

I acknowledge mages can be useful during war, but given we have a very limited amount of knowledge involving major conflict involving multiple mages, i am also hesitant to assume that none fell to temptation during battle, that their will shattered when they were exposed to the rigors of war.

 

.-. Beyond that gameplay limitations have also sort of neutered the notion involving the possibility of abominations even occurring in battle outside of a few specific occurrences

 

I tend to take lore over gamplay given that Gaider has been saying for years, gameplay would be more akin to lore if they had more "resources." 

 

But anyway, even gameplay limited as it is has shown us that abominations can come from mages who are exposed to the rigor of combat.

 

For me the usage of mages is a risk versus reward argument; Potentially they can be quite useful, but potentially they can ultimately end up costing you just as much as they can make you.

 

Like Gambling.

 

 

.

 

This isn't something I care to debate. Put simply your previous comments have caused me to see you as quite the magic and mage hater to the point that I consider trying to reason with you a waste of time as our values and ethics are so different that common ground on the subject of mages and magic is impossible to find.

[Willowhugger]

Re-reading Asunder, the Tranquil states they have free will and can disobey (one helps Wynne) but says, "Obedience is prudent."

So whatever that means.

[raging_monkey]

This isn't something I care to debate. Put simply your previous comments have caused me to see you as quite the magic and mage hater to the point that I consider trying to reason with you a waste of time as our values and ethics are so different that common ground on the subject of mages and magic is impossible to find.

but i think we all agree on mage supervision to a extent

[dragonflight288]

Right, cause DA2 is the best source for dragon age content. All mages are blood magic users. All templars are insane law breakers. And all the qunari are shirtless. Why? Cause it was in DA2.

 

 

Tell me if I'm wrong, but this is the impression I'm getting here.

 

You're going to completely disregard something from in-game dialogue and lore, which I used to show as an example that you hear of the abuses of authority and the despair it causes to those who knew them, eye-witness testimony straight from the victims's mouth, simply because of the game it came from and you disagree with it?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Re-reading Asunder, the Tranquil states they have free will and can disobey (one helps Wynne) but says, "Obedience is prudent."

So whatever that means.

It means they don't disobey orders while the Templars are watching, and also that you can threaten them to get what you want if they don't think they have recourse.

[Willowhugger]

It means they don't disobey orders while the Templars are watching, and also that you can threaten them to get what you want if they don't think they have recourse.

Then most likely the Tranquil did report it to Meredith...and she didn't care.

[Master Warder Z_]

have caused me to see you as quite the magic and mage hater 

 

I "hate" neither, i view both as something that needs to be carefully controlled and watched over.

[raging_monkey]

Then most likely the Tranquil did report it to Meredith...and she didn't care.

i would say the tranquil can lie but lying requires some negative emotion doesnt ?

[raging_monkey]

I "hate" neither, i view both as something that needs to be carefully controlled and watched over.

sod ill just ask it so i can talk with you easily. What are yoir in-depth views on this cause i know you used to fair better circles so for my ease tell me please?

[Willowhugger]

i would say the tranquil can lie but lying requires some negative emotion doesnt ?

 

Alternative Pro-Meredith view: Meredith was going to do something about it but Hawke took care of the problem.

[raging_monkey]

Alternative Pro-Meredith view: Meredith was going to do something about it but Hawke took care of the problem.

thats more than probable

[Willowhugger]

Right, cause DA2 is the best source for dragon age content. All mages are blood magic users. All templars are insane law breakers. And all the qunari are shirtless. Why? Cause it was in DA2.

 

Kirkwall is the Noir city for Hawke's Fantasy Detective story.

 

All cops are corrupt, all crooks are vicious, and the only good man is half-cop, half-crook.

[Inprea]

but i think we all agree on mage supervision to a extent

 

I do to an extent. I'm not a fan of the one size fits all solution for example. I agree on mage supervision unless the people don't want it. The dailish for example. I'm a supporter of the right of self determination. In much the same way though if a people want to exile mages from their community well that's their call. I just believe the right to life takes priority over the right of self determination so kicking the mage out is fine killing them is not.