Im kinda interested to hear if people rather consider themselves (in da world/lore in general) on the mages side or on the templar side and if your view/siding has changed over the course of the games?
I considered myself on the mages side for dao, da2 but have now finally reconsidered and came to the conclusion that mages are just dangerous and the templars were right all along... how about you?
I am on no side, but in the middle. Contrary to what some people have been made to believe, it is possible to be supportive of both parties. I am in favor of giving mages greater freedoms and greater involvement in society than what they have under the existing system, however, there needs to be a place like the Circle to provide regulation and a group with the Templars' abilities to stand guard against the very real dangers of magic. I am in favor of any mage or Templar that has their head on straight, and oppose any mage or Templar doing anything stupid.
Begone with your neutrality, heathen!I am on no side, but in the middle. Contrary to what some people have been made to believe, it is possible to be supportive of both parties. I am in favor of giving mages greater freedoms and greater involvement in society than what they have under the existing system, however, there needs to be a place like the Circle to provide regulation and a group with the Templars' abilities to stand guard against the very real dangers of magic. I am in favor of any mage or Templar that has their head on straight, and oppose any mage or Templar doing anything stupid.
I am for mage freedom, but against the murder. Fortunately my mage inquisitor is the Martin Luther King of mages, giving freedom and equality while condemning the murder and blood magic.
Do you know what you've set into motion, OP? * sighs *
I'm pro-mage, as I've always been. I get the reasoning behind the Templars and Circles, but it's plainly obvious that the current system just doesn't work. It needs reform, which DA:I allows as a possibility.
If I were a character in this world, I would be pro-Templar.
As such, that's often the choice I roleplay.
Magic is extremely dangerous in the world of Thedas; and mages absolutely must learn how to control their powers so they are not a danger to themselves or others. So for that reason, the Circles, as places where mages can not only study but also find the support of people going through the same thing, are critical. But Circles as prisons don't work. You can't imprison someone for something they might do. I like Vivienne's position the most - keep the Circles as institutions, and retain the Templars for safety. But Templars do not rule over mages; and abolish the Rite of Tranquility as a punishment and retain it only for a last-resort for an incompetent mage who would otherwise have to be executed.
I'm firmly on the mages' side. Which means that I think mages should oversee their own affairs and not be indentured to an organization that has an ideological aversion against magic. It does not mean I don't acknowledge the necessity of mandatory training, or of a period of forced residence in the training period. Mages need to learn to control their powers, and quite likely it won't be possible to do away with Tranquility completely. I also think that the newly-formed College of Enchanters will need people with templar-like training in case something goes horribly wrong. The Chantry needs to stay out of it though. I see their authority over mages' affairs as completely illegitimate.
Some people may see this as a "compromise" position rather than a pro-mage position, but my main issue is the role of the Chantry, and I'm not compromising on that.
Within DAI, I have played both versions. I think "In Hushed Whispers" is much more interesting than "Champions of the Just" (the envy demon did nothing for me, compared to the vision of the future and Alexius), but the mages/venatori with Calpurnia (spelled that way on purpose since IMO DAI misspells the name) are much more interesting as an enemy faction later in the game.
I am on no side, but in the middle. Contrary to what some people have been made to believe, it is possible to be supportive of both parties. I am in favor of giving mages greater freedoms and greater involvement in society than what they have under the existing system, however, there needs to be a place like the Circle to provide regulation and a group with the Templars' abilities to stand guard against the very real dangers of magic. I am in favor of any mage or Templar that has their head on straight, and oppose any mage or Templar doing anything stupid.
So agreed, and the fact that nne in thedas seems able to see this option, or at least not enough to stop the fighting, is the very problem, not the mages or templars themselves.
I'm firmly on the mages' side. Which means that I think mages should oversee their own affairs and not be indentured to an organization that has an ideological aversion against magic. It does not mean I don't acknowledge the necessity of mandatory training, or of a period of forced residence in the training period. Mages need to learn to control their powers, and quite likely it won't be possible to do away with Tranquility completely. I also think that the newly-formed College of Enchanters will need people with templar-like training in case somethings goes horribly wrong. The Chantry needs to stay out of it though. I see their authority over mages' affairs as completely illegitimate.
Within DAI, I have played both versions. I think "In Hushed Whispers" is much more interesting than "Champions of the Just" (the envy demon did nothing for me, compared to the vision of the future and Alexius), but the mages/venatori with Calpurnia (spelled that way on purpose since IMO DAI misspells the name) are much more interesting as an enemy faction later in the game.
Really? Cause I was a Mage supporter even after Anders in DA2 then I sided with the mages in DAI and instantly regretted it when they sided with Tevinter. It made me change sides. Mages need oversight or they'll side with tevinter and/or start using blood magic the minute something doesn't go their way.
Really? Cause I was a Mage supporter even after Anders in DA2 then I sided with the mages in DAI and instantly regretted it when they sided with Tevinter. It made me change sides. Mages need oversight or they'll side with tevinter and/or start using blood magic the minute something doesn't go their way.
A threat of annihilation is a rather severe case of "things not going their way", don't you think? You can't fault a mage for having a survival instinct. Also I'm rather tired of seeing "blood magic" and "Tevinter" seen as the bogeymen that justify any restriction. What do you expect if you give them no alternative but slavery or death?
Having said that, the alliance with Tevinter makes little sense. A faction of freedom fighters accepting indentured servitude to a third party? Most of Fiona's people would've run off into the hills before doing that, templars or not. I suspect there's some mind control involved.
A threat of annihilation is a rather severe case of "things not going their way", don't you think? You can't fault a mage for having a survival instinct. Also I'm rather tired of seeing "blood magic" and "Tevinter" seen as the bogeymen that justify any restriction. What do you expect if you give them no alternative?
Having said that, the alliance with Tevinter makes little sense. A faction of freedom fighters accepting indentured servitude to a third party? Most of Fiona's people would've run off into the hills before doing that, templars or not. I suspect there's some mind control involved.
The rebel mages had the protection of redcliffe and the fereldan king. Tevinter and Blood magic are reasonable enough reasons as to why the rebel mages in redcliffe should be controlled in some fashion atleast. I'm not against mages like Wynne, irwin, vivianne etc walking free since they are mature and reasonable. Its mages like Fiona, Anders and the Ostwick MWHAHAHA Tevinter idolizer turned blood mage girl from the redcliffe pub that needs controlling.
i dunno, just think the templars were kinda right every time with their warnings ^^
Templars. One, because their missions is actually a lot more fun having like three different parts instead of only one going into the future.
Second, I believe the templars need a fist around the mages enough so they don't move, but enough for them to squirm comfortably. Why? Because magic is literally the power of creation and life in this game. Suddenly generating energy in the forms of fire or shields, manipulating people's thoughts or their very body movements. They make the blood in their foes veins work against them. This is a horrific power. A power only few can actually have at the moment. Revival of the dead and the actual changing of matter are not laughing matters.
Third, power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There's always going to be something that a mage might feel not powerful against. Something to keep reaching for more power against, wither it be demons or actual templars. Wither through fear, pride, or desperation they will attempt for it. The outcomes have always been horrible.
Considering i've sided with the mages in both other DA's though, kinda makes me a hypocrite. But I still stand by the fact that templars are completely needed.
The rebel mages had the protection of redcliffe and the fereldan king. Tevinter and Blood magic are reasonable enough reasons as to why the rebel mages in redcliffe should be controlled in some fashion atleast. I'm not against mages like Wynne, irwin, vivianne etc walking free since they are mature and reasonable. Its mages like Fiona, Anders and the Ostwick MWHAHAHA Tevinter idolizer turned blood mage girl from the redcliffe pub that needs controlling.
Yes, and since most mages are reasonable people an organization run by mages can do that as easily. It will also be accepted by mages more easily. I don't know about you, but being interned by an organization that blames your kind of the world's greatest evils and acts as if you're likely to repeat that the first chance you get, that's a recipe for all-out-resentment if I've ever seen one. Personally, if I imagine being a mage in that system I'd probably turn terrorist, too.
Yes, and since most mages are reasonable people an organization run by mages can do that as easily. It will also be accepted by mages more easily. I don't know about you, but being interned by an organization that blames your kind of the world's greatest evils and acts as if you're likely to repeat that the first chance you get, that's a recipe for all-out-resentment if I've ever seen one.
Fiona was a mage controlling the mages and see how well that ended up, I do agree that the templars should change their hireing requirements so that "Protecting mages and regular people from the dangers of magic and angry mobs" is number one instead of having religion and belief as the number one thing for a templar. More templars like Lysette, Cullen, Ser Barris and Gregoir and a fast way to weed out undesirable templars from the order so we don't have any more Kirkwalls.
Neither
Pro mage-freedom and independence. If this:
A book of superstitions. Several of the pages have been bookmarked:
How to Prevent Magic Formation in the Earliest Stages
Should mage blood run through your line, no matter how distant the relation, avoid conceiving in winter. While with child, sleep with driedembrium beneath your pillow to ensure good health.
Infants and most small children will show no signs of magic. However, you can purge the body of unwanted elements before they take hold. Place leeches on each of the child's limbs. When done, burn the leeches. Be sure not to inhale the smoke. Afterwards, wrap the child's limbs in cloth blessed by a Chantry sister.
A child showing signs of magic may be submerged in water until the breath is nearly lost. If magic is still weak within them, it will die before the child. Should the trouble persist beyond reason, certain talismans may suppress the child's skill.
Is the norm in Thedas I hope the darkspawn win.
Retour en haut
