Saved as many mages as I could in the Hinterlands before I started Champions of the Just(making suret hey either left Fionas group or joined the Inquistion so any people left where idiots who believed Tevinters lies). Not all templars are bad and that quest pretty much showed it.
Interestingly by siding with the templars, a few of their war table missions were about protecting/saving mages not hunting them down. Which I think is cool, it shows a side of the templars that we don't typically see.
First playthrough will be mages and after that Templars... I like to see both sides. lol
The Templars are mah brosephs.
Some of the mages were probably decent people but good gods do I despise everything about Fiona.
The Templars were having corruption forced on them, Fiona chose her side.
The way some people talk about this it sounds like Fiona chose her side like the Geth chose to side with the Reapers
The way some people talk about this it sounds like Fiona chose her side like the Geth chose to side with the Reapers
With the main difference being that the Geth were not the ones who chose to start the war....
With the main difference being that the Geth were not the ones who chose to start the war....
They kinda did when they retaliated to the Quarian attack. They could have just not fought back.
They kinda did when they retaliated to the Quarian attack
Defending yourself does not count as starting a war.
Fiona WANTED this war, and now that it's turning against her she proves just how pathetic she really is.
She only pushed for a vote not a war. The war was bound to happen anyway, a dog can take abuse but will fight back sooner or later.With the main difference being that the Geth were not the ones who chose to start the war....
Defending yourself does not count as starting a war.
Fiona WANTED this war, and now that it's turning against her she proves just how pathetic she really is.
Sound like she just wanted to have Independent Cirlces, the Templars are the ones who didn't like that and tried to kill them all. They are defending themselves.
Sound like she just wanted to have Independent Cirlces, the Templars are the ones who didn't like that and tried to kill them all. They are defending themselves.
Why should there be independent Circles. We all have to account to a higher power, and mages don't get to opt out just because they're special little snowflakes.
Why should there be independent Circles. We all have to account to a higher power, and mages don't get to opt out just because they're special little snowflakes.
By the sound of it, Mages will answer to Grand Enchanters or whatever Mage leaders will be called in the new Circles rather than the Chantry and Templars.
By the sound of it, Mages will answer to Grand Enchanters or whatever Mage leaders will be called in the new Circles rather than the Chantry and Templars.
No, that leader needs to answer to someone, as well as mages need to be watched simply for being mages. It's nowhere near as simple as, "We'll just watch ourselves." An abomination's only goal is to make more.
No, that leader needs to answer to someone, as well as mages need to be watched simply for being mages. It's nowhere near as simple as, "We'll just watch ourselves." An abomination's only goal is to make more.
It kinda looks like we can make it that simple and get away with it.
Unless I'm missing something from the epilogue and the status quo is restored like a certain option in Orlais Civil War.
No, that leader needs to answer to someone, as well as mages need to be watched simply for being mages. It's nowhere near as simple as, "We'll just watch ourselves." An abomination's only goal is to make more.
Curious what would be stopping the mages from becoming blood mages in independent circles?
Blood Magic isn't evil, but there's Mages who don't want 'evil' Mages causing trouble. Or a plunky band of hero who happens to come at the right moment to stop the 'evil' Mages from causing trouble.
So, I read somewhere that
I must admit that I read it only once, and that I'm not sure if the source is actually reliable, but I would still *very* much like to know if this is true. I mean, the anti-climax after all the effort I put into the game to make the (for me) right decisions would be criminally off-putting.
So, I read somewhere that
Spoiler
I must admit that I read it only once, and that I'm not sure if the source is actually reliable, but I would still *very* much like to know if this is true. I mean, the anti-climax after all the effort I put into the game to make the (for me) right decisions would be criminally off-putting.
I know which topic you're referring to, and I'd like a confirmation or denial of this too, please.
http://forum.bioware...-and-ending-wt/
There is an update in that thread where someone had the same choice for ending and the Templars didn't turn on them or try to kill you. I haven't played yet but if you are still unsure it may be worthwhile just keeping an eye on that thread.
The thing is, I wasn't even referring to that particular topic - so now that makes two places I've read about it xD
The people in that thread who immediately start to call the OP names (which is, of course, very constructive >_>) don't seem to have even played that far before crying false.
I strongly get the impression that this might be an (anti-climactic) ending simply by playing mage, choosing the Templars and being nice to them :S I haven't played it yet so I might be wrong, but if it actually boils down to that, doesn't that seem kind of like a... stupid ending - as in ME3-ending-stupid?
so its possible for me to do both quest? like i can do the templar first then punish them, then do the mage after and have them as allies?(and vice-verse)(more loot and exp^^)
no you can not sorry and thanks for keeping this alive I might get a achievement like this.
It seems there is no Magna Carta, no Habeas Corpus in Theden. All the political entities shown so far would appear grossly oppressive by our lights. All recognise subject groups or classes with limited economic and political rights. Even the Dalish may have a darker history than they realise, a society saved by cultural dislocation. Ferelden seems familiar and freer than most, but this depends on having a fundamentally liberal and decent monarch, and a weak concept of feudal tenure, closer to a clan system or the Pre-Norman Saxon state. In Thedas any liberty that does exist seems to require a power vacuum, and a sparse population.
I find it hard to see why people seem to assume that the problem of the mages is one of personal liberty and self-development against oppression. It is hardly that simple. A mage is always a major risk while linked to the fade. How many innocents should be allowed to die because a mage overestimates his ability to control his own dreams? One child of seven almost emptied a town. Society does have a right to protect itself, to deny some of the rights of an individual determined recklessly to endanger his fellows.
Power tends to corrupt. That is clear from the behaviour of many Templars whose excesses are further fuelled by the belief that they are saving man, elf and dwarf kind from the unbridled tyranny of which Tevinter is an example. They have lost sight of the idea that circles existed not to punish mages but to protect them from themselves and the demons that might prey on them, as well as protecting society. In this light circles are designed to to be asylums rather than prisons or concentration camps. This does not pardon Templar abuses, but it does show that what is required is proper supervision of the Templars by a person or body that believes it has a duty of care towards mages whose liberty must be curtailed for the welfare of all, but only to the minimum extent required for public safety.
Finally we come to Blood Magic. Again the issue is complex, but can be reduced to two questions:
1. Whose blood? It is evil if it employs someone else's blood without free and informed consent
2. Can the mage reasonably expect to control any serious consequences of his action? If blood magic operates as a beacon for Fade entities wishing to experience the mortal plane, the mage cannot pretend he is responsible for all consequences, whether desired or unforeseen. He cannot stake out his goat then complain if a tiger turns up.
If Templars require reform, mages clearly require control. Once again Bioware has produced a very uncomfortable dilemma for a role-player. I fear I must betray Connor and co. once again ... and does it make me feel like a ****.
Of course they are good at it. They know how to make you invest in your PC. In DA:O I remain surprised that so few players notice that Morrigan's Dark Ritual is the culminating moral dilemma of the game, the fight an anticlimax. Every relationship-building episode in the game leads to that simple decision, and ensures that what the warden sacrifices is not (just) his life, but the well-being of the LI in the face of a suicide attack by the beloved. As Wynne put it, the PC has the option of betraying his love or the rest of the world. There is no get out (other than rolling back and conscripting Loghain. That is why Riordan's news is delayed).
________________________________________________________________________________
I'm not a build, I'm a character.
Why should there be independent Circles. We all have to account to a higher power, and mages don't get to opt out just because they're special little snowflakes.
Actually, most nations are accountable to themselves.
Fiona also didn't have the votes to be anywhere NEAR rebelling. It took an epic series of provocations to get the majority of mages to want to join in against the Templars.
The irony is after Cole killed Lambert, negotiation probably would have been possible.
I find it hard to see why people seem to assume that the problem of the mages is one of personal liberty and self-development against oppression. It is hardly that simple. A mage is always a major risk while linked to the fade. How many innocents should be allowed to die because a mage overestimates his ability to control his own dreams? One child of seven almost emptied a town. Society does have a right to protect itself, to deny some of the rights of an individual determined recklessly to endanger his fellows.
One child of seven, a Blood Mage, his books of blood magic, and a political conspiracy.
Thedas isn't Warhammer of the RingsTM.
The mages need controls on their behavior and protections but that's because the SETTING is dangerous.
Oppressing mages for the public good has the unsurprising reaction that, if you deny someone any connection to the community, they often decide they have no obligation to it.
Retour en haut