266 réponses à ce sujet

[rigron]

Mages, and ally with them, because they, as any other human being in the world, deserve to be free instead of being forcibly taken into slavery from their parents hands for a religious crap group. So far I have fully support mages freedom on every possible conversations and actions.

[KainD]

Siding with the mages also made my day when I saw a drunk, pissed off Cass in the Tavern. 

[Aisabel]

Mages because:

(A) I play mages all the time and love magic.

( mages have magic which would help more facing the rifts/breach, demons, and the elder one.

© because the templars basically felt like they did not care for anything but themselves. The mages were bad too but idk- i felt there was something off about the templars and i was kinda right..

[Hurbster]

Templars, even though I play a mage. Disband them and make them into Inquisition warriors. If DA2 has taught us anything it's mages turn into blood magic, demonically possessed nutters at the drop of a hat.

[rigron]

Templars, even though I play a mage. Disband them and make them into Inquisition warriors. If DA2 has taught us anything it's mages turn into blood magic, demonically possessed nutters at the drop of a hat.

 

And that Templars like to kill mages for no reason even when they haven´t commited a crime in their entire life or are suspects or anything, just because Templars are boring and want to have some fun on any given day or because they want to discharge their personal frustrations on innocent people who can´t legally defend themselves due to them being slaves without any rights. Yeah, DA 2 has taught us a lot of things for sure...

[zeypher]

yea kinda iffy about going for mages what those fukers did to the tranquil to make the occulurms. They spout all freedom and stuff and this is what they do to their lesser kinda proves that they do not deserve freedom.

[KaiserShep]

yea kinda iffy about going for mages what those fukers did to the tranquil to make the occulurms. They spout all freedom and stuff and this is what they do to their lesser kinda proves that they do not deserve freedom.

 

The rebels didn't do that to the tranquil though; it was the Tevinter mages.

[zeypher]

The rebels allowed it, it happened under their bloody watch. I mean they are your own and this is what yo do? Going to tervinter for help, getting your fellow tranquils kills. IF you go to the house with vivienne, cass and varric she confirms thats why rebels have so few tranquil. the mages are literally killing their own. 

 

This time i plan to do mages but i definitely plan on conscripting them. They seem to suffer from the same narrow minded terrible leadership as the templars.

[SwordofMercy1]

I picked the mages just to p*** Viviene off and kinda force Cullen (and Cassandra apparently) to get over their mage fear. No, I actually picked them because I didn't want to risk losing them to the Magisters. That doesn't mean I have a problem with them in general, I just could see the lies that were oozing out of Alexius the moment I saw him. I mean Enchanter Fiona even mentions that they had children and elderly with them that could not fight. I wasn't going to leave them to some magister who planned on using them as canon fodder! Sure, the Templars would have been 'safer' but... YOLO (not really).

[OHB MajorV]

I went mages to stay consistent with my world state. Morrigan set me on this path of being sympathetic to apostates long ago. Followed by me siding with the mages in DA2 it just felt logical as my cannon playthrough.

[Maman Brigitte]

Conscripted the mages.

[phaonica]

I choose the mages the first time because the last time I'd seen the Templars they were punching Chantry ladies in the face and calling me names, while the leader of the mages came to me personally (I thought) and said they would help us. I didn't even know about Tevinter being there, at the time.

 

The second time, I choose the Templars because they are the ones who are trained to fight against magic. Also, this character also didn't know about Tevinter's involvement.

 

Having done both now, I personally like the experience when choosing the mages far better than choosing the templars.

[SwordofMercy1]

@zeypher

 

That's actually kind of 'the thing' in Inquisition: The no definant 'good' and 'bad' choices. I mean think about it. In DA:O you have the option of saving the mages in the tower, or killing them all based on Cullen's fears. It's pretty clear on which is 'good' and 'bad'. Same thing for things like naming a new king of Orzammar. You either want to make Orzammar progressive (overlooking the fact Bhelen killed his siblings) or you want the Harrowmont, the one that Aeducan wanted to be king. Sure there is some grey in this situation, but it is easily overshadowed by the character's motives. Same thing in DA2. We get scenarios that are either 'good or bad' and a couple of greys in between. In this, we do not get that luxury. Literally everything you come across is just grey, grey, grey. Or better yet: RAINBOW! And that's what makes it so good. In reality, we rarely have the chance to know what is the right and wrong choice. It's completely based on perception. It also embodies the belief that humans are extensively flawed, which makes determining right and wrong even more difficult. The mages are not perfect. The Templars are not perfect. Our own Inquisitors, the characters we made and influence are not perfect. Choices have lists of pros and cons that nearly balance with the other side, which adds to the difficulty of picking. Heck, even the companion quests are like this (Iron Bull ).

[De Vulus]

I choose the mages the first time because the last time I'd seen the Templars they were punching Chantry ladies in the face and calling me names, while the leader of the mages came to me personally (I thought) and said they would help us. I didn't even know about Tevinter being there, at the time.

Cassandra tells you there's something wrong with the Lord Seeker how he isn't his normal self, not to mention he looks like a fricking vampire. You then go talk to the mages and find out they are led by a Magister from evil Tevinter. So there's obviously something weird going out with the Templars while the mages are just afraid of losing and seek help from Tevinter.

 

Personally the only logical choice I see is to go talk to the Templars. Of course I always RP when I play Dragon Age so I've now played through both choices and I think the Templar mission is superior to that of the mages.

[nightscrawl]

The first play I chose the mages because I generally play as a mage and I felt that they deserve the chance. The second play I was going to go with the templars to see how it worked out... but this was also going to be my Dorian romance play and I just couldn't pass up the future time with him...

 

I'll pick templars next time, I swear!

[KaiserShep]

For me, the issue with the mages is two-fold. Rogue mage behavior typically has more potential to stir up something more dangerous, but at the same time, a hostile presence has occupied Redcliffe and its citizens were given the boot. Regardless of how the Lord Seeker was behaving, I regarded the Templars as a secondary consideration, since I don't trust Cullen's confidence in their ability to suppress magic as substantial as the breach, and as far as anyone knew, the worst case scenario would end with them being a faction for me to simply crush and be done with them later. As they appeared to be broken away from the Chantry anyway, I would not consider it to be any more of a loss than what was sustained already.

[De Vulus]

The first play I chose the mages because I generally play as a mage and I felt that they deserve the chance. The second play I was going to go with the templars to see how it worked out... but this was also going to be my Dorian romance play and I just couldn't pass up the future time with him...

 

I'll pick templars next time, I swear!

But when you side with Templars, Dorian makes a great entrance. So good in fact that Bioware replaced Dorian's model with the Inquisitor in one of the trailers to make him look more badass.

 

For me, the issue with the mages is two-fold. Rogue mage behavior typically has more potential to stir up something more dangerous, but at the same time, a hostile presence has occupied Redcliffe and its citizens were given the boot. Regardless of how the Lord Seeker was behaving, I regarded the Templars as a secondary consideration, since I don't trust Cullen's confidence in their ability to suppress magic as substantial as the breach, and as far as anyone knew, the worst case scenario would end with them being a faction for me to simply crush and be done with them later. As they appeared to be broken away from the Chantry anyway, I would not consider it to be any more of a loss than what was sustained already.

From a role-playing aspect, I thought I could get the rebel mages out of Redcliffe with the help of the Templars and get a few of the mages to help with closing the breach.

[Rixkey]

Mages first. I was playing a Vashoth rogue Inquisitor so she didn't have any cultural or personal feelings one way or another, which left it pretty up in the air. She was on the fence right up until Val Royeaux. The way the Lord Seeker acted there didn't paint the Templars as the best of allies at the moment, and while there was a chance they'd find Templars operating on their own, or who disagreed with their current marching orders, they'd still have to find them, get them to agree to talk (which wasn't a definite thing, that they'd even be willing to), make sure in the process that they really were operating outside of the Lord Seeker's control and weren't going to turn on them, and then, hopefully, actually sit down and discuss this stuff, and then, hopefully, get them mobilized. The mages--while not exactly squeaky clean themselves--seemed to have it the most together at the time. They were ready to talk while the Templars were still scrambling around with their pants half-on, and so they seemed the most expedient, most surefire solution. At least they weren't punching old, unarmored women in the face with gauntleted fists in public, anyway. 

 

And, hey. Mages for solving the unknown magic issue. Seemed to make more sense than hoping whatever the Templars did to mages even worked on the breach. 

 

Of course, then you actually get there and it's all Magisters and Time Lord adventures, but at the time...

 

I really want to do Templars soon, though. Their quest seems awesome. 

[Applepie_Svk]

The rebels didn't do that to the tranquil though; it was the Tevinter mages.

 

Well they did help to it by inviting Tevinter to their doorstep...

[KaiserShep]

From a role-playing aspect, I thought I could get the rebel mages out of Redcliffe with the help of the Templars and get a few of the mages to help with closing the breach.

 

More than likely, Redcliffe village would be destroyed in the battle soon to follow if you rolled up through the gates with an army of Templars.

[Ziegrif]

Went for mages.

First Inquisitor was a mage.

Was kind of expected.

[De Vulus]

More than likely, Redcliffe village would be destroyed in the battle soon to follow if you rolled up through the gates with an army of Templars.

Maybe, but that's hardly a problem for the Inquisition. It would just make the Hero of Ferelden angry because of all that effort he went through to save Redcliffe in Origins.

[Aramintai]

I've played both sides just to see the outcome and will stay with the mages in the future. 

-Templars inviting all sorts of trash into their ranks and abusing their power over mages. I'm also telling Cassandra not to rebuild the Seekers, as they have become as corrupt and devoid of purpose as the templars. The new Inquisition, as was the original old one will take over their place in the world. The world has changed and I'm rebuilding everything from scratch with my canon Inquisition, since it is obvious that the old order is not working anymore, but this time it's gonna be different.

-Mages practically being prisoners for life in their Circles just for having magical gift always rubbed me the wrong way. Like any other common person they should have the same rights and be free, not only from the templar shackles, but also from the stigma people put on them. As for the abomination threat, well, escalated events in Kirkwall reminded me of a "cornered wolf" analogy, nothing else. Most mages have enough common sense and training not to get themselves possesed, otherwise we'd be seeing abominations around every corner. It's just an ages old scare tactic used by templars to leash mages and put fear into commoners.

So I'm all for mages creating their own institution an policing themselves. And if they'll need help, the Inquisition will stand ready.

[KaiserShep]

Maybe, but that's hardly a problem for the Inquisition. It would just make the Hero of Ferelden angry because of all that effort he went through to save Redcliffe in Origins.

 

I don't think I could agree with this. Besides, it's not the Hero of Ferelden to be concerned about, but rather its king and/or queen. If Redcliffe village is destroyed because you invaded it unnecessarily with a band of Templars, it would no doubt sour relations with them, which I'd be disinclined to do if there are other options to explore first. Besides, my Inquisitor's primary objective is to spare innocent people as much of the fighting as possible. Destroying Redcliffe village with a bunch of Templars trying to wrangle mages through violent means would totally undermine this.

[Eterna]

I pick Templars. The actual quest itself is a tad bit weaker but Barris is far better than Fiona And Samson is far less compelling than Calpurnia as a villain.