235 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

It's very easy to leave the mages to the consequences of their actions because none of them seem to truly care about said consequences.  And If they don't care about their own futures in Thedas, why should the Inquisition?

 

It's actually extremely difficult for me to actually roll with a Templar playthrough, mainly because I just cannot fathom any good reason for me to leave Redcliffe to be completely taken over by this super suspicious Tevinter cultist. Whatever it is I prefer to do with the mages, I know that I very much prefer to neutralize these guys.

[ThreeF]

All this being said it's still pretty easy to justify, even as a mage, leaving Redcliffe. You could leave to recruit the Templars to 'liberate' the Rebellion from Alexius and Fiona.

 

Only if you are role playing it. Actually both sides of the quest don't revolve around saving anyone, it's all about closing the breech. When you are talking to Alexius in the tavern you get only these options:

 

a)let's bargain so I can get the mages

b)will you give me a discount so I can have the mages?

c)how much it will cost me to have the mages?

 

You don't even get the option to tell Alexius that he has no legal right to indenture anyone on Ferelden soil, let alone tossing the rightful ruler of the place out. You just go along with it so you can get mages.

 

Similar with Templars, except there the plot line is more about wtf is going on here and more fast forward.

 

And as far as I can tell in the conversation with your advisors outside of WT and inside WT you never mention anything about saving anyone.

[Poison_Berrie]

Honestly, just look at what Meredith had to work with.

A group of Kirkwall mages managed to turn a spirit of Wisdom into a Pride demon without even meaning to. There was clearly something wrong with that Circle.

There was clearly something wrong in that entire city. Most Templars are presented as bad apples (with a few exceptions) and most mages come across as insane (with a few exceptions).

It is however implied that Meredith was quite forceful and unforgiving from the start.

 

Still don't see what Anders had against that Circle lol

It's a weird bit of storytelling schizophrenia (or ludo-narrative dissonance).

On one hand we are told that mages that go into the circle (even in a liberal one like Ferelden) aren't allowed contact with their family anymore and only rarely are some allowed outside. Yet when the story requires it, getting a mage permission to go outside it's hardly a problem and I think we get a chance to get someone in contact with their family.

 

Any group can be loved or hated based on how they are currently being represented. Orlais was painted very badly in the Origins, because the only times they were mentioned, it was by people who were speaking of the atrocities they committed when they invaded Ferelden. Even the woman in the marketplace who is actually from Orlais and claims to miss it, has a story of having to flee because a Chevalier tried to enforce his legal right to (effectively) rape her  Unsurprisingly, this is something that isn't brought up in Inquisition, when Orlais is painted in a much more favorable light.

Really? There's a load of stuffy nobles who seem to scoff at whatever pleb they see. The game is seen to be an all consuming affair of backstabbing, underhandedness and blackmailing that takes precedent over and/or uses things like a hole in the sky.

 

It's been stated repeatedly in the various mages-or-templars threads that the setup for their missions in Inquisition is extremely uneven, and that is definitely a problem -- I, too, felt very irritated by the impression that the game was strongly trying to push me towards picking the mages. In my opinion, at least, the outcome of the templar mission is better so it evens out somewhat.

Though the mage side does allow you to get more information in advance, all your various advisor are practically telling you to just do the Templar side of things.

I'll say this it's a hard choice, since it appears both side have plenty of unwilling participants and I wish you could take a third option to persuade ser Barris and fellow doubters away from the Templar's and smuggle several a bunch mages out of Redcliffe.

 

Anyone who sides with the mages are scum and need a reality check. DA:O made the mages look like victims and the templars as tyrants and I naiively kept siding with them thinking that the templars were just major cunts. In DA:2 you keep seeing blood mages left and right and even one of your companions (Merril) used it.  Orsino, the first enchanter whom you suppose to think that he supports the chantry's rules, kept a serial killer hidden so he could study necromancy. Let's not forget that Anders blew up the chantry as a revolution.

Two things.

1) Blood magic is just a tool. It's open to a terrible perversion, because you can sacrifice other people for your magic/power. But ultimately you don't need to resort to blood magic to summon demons or do terrible things.

2) DA:2 is a hot mess of terrible Templars and Mages to the point that it becomes ridiculous. With the way things you are shown, you'd think most mages blood mage and an abomination rate of 50%. Templars are for the most part cruel guards with abusive tedency and sometimes all out psychopaths. I have a hard time taking anything from it as gospel.

[KaiserShep]

Only if you are role playing it. Actually both sides of the quest don't revolve around saving anyone, it's all about closing the breech. When you are talking to Alexius in the tavern you get only these options:

 

a)let's bargain so I can get the mages

b)will you give me a discount so I can have the mages?

c)how much it will cost me to have the mages?

 

You don't even get the option to tell Alexius that he has no legal right to indenture anyone on Ferelden soil, let alone tossing the rightful ruler of the place out. You just go along with it so you can get mages.

 

Similar with Templars, except there the plot line is more about wtf is going on here and more fast forward.

 

And as far as I can tell in the conversation with your advisors outside of WT and inside WT you never mention anything about saving anyone.

 

In my first playthrough, I suspected that this dialogue with Alexius was more like a ruse to humor him while you were obviously going to just storm the place later and probably force him to surrender if not kill him.

[ThreeF]

In my first playthrough, I suspected that this dialogue with Alexius was more like a ruse to humor him while you were obviously going to just storm the place later and probably force him to surrender if not kill him.

 

I'm trying to play it like this too, but my IQ must be really good actor, like Oscar material or something.

[Helios969]

I do not really think there is any particular bias (intentional) by the writers, but even if that was the intent it had the opposite effect on me.  I showed up to Redcliff to find Fiona had sold her people into slavery.  Most of the mages you talk to are quite unhappy about this but give you that BS response: "she's our leader...guess we just have to follow her into a decade of servitude." Derp.  Stupid is as stupid does.

 

That immediately made me decide to investigate the Lord Seeker and the Templars.  And I was a mage sympathetic to the mage plight!  You could argue that there is a built in bias against siding with the mages with having them align with Tevinter; in which we have largely been conditioned to revile and distrust.  Again I don't think there was any particular intent by the writers to lead us one way or the other, and really think it says more about our individual perceptions and biases...and how that effects our gameplay/ability to roleplay.

[Recidiva]

Siding with the Templars was evil in DA:O.

 

It was even in DA:2 mostly because everybody drank from the same well of crazy.  However, that was with individuals.  Mages are still abused by Templars for being who they are, not what they do.

 

In DA:I, the rebels are all flat out murderous crazy again and the letters you can pick up in the Hinterlands show that each side is creatively homicidal.

 

It's not an even split as far as morality goes.  Individual mages may be assholes, but every Templar signs on to uphold the Harrowing, stand by the practice of making people Tranquil and think imprisoning people is righteously necessary and divinely decreed.

 

The game doesn't reward you differently for siding with Templars or Mages, but the storyline and the morality of it play into it the same way it did in other games. 

 

What does surprise me is that there's absolutely zero having to deal with abominations if you set the mages free, and zero blood magic weirdness at Skyhold.

 

Having hung around Kirkwall, seems like you couldn't make it down the steps anywhere without tripping over a demon or a ritual.

[Helmetto]

I do not really think there is any particular bias (intentional) by the writers, but even if that was the intent it had the opposite effect on me.  I showed up to Redcliff to find Fiona had sold her people into slavery.  Most of the mages you talk to are quite unhappy about this but give you that BS response: "she's our leader...guess we just have to follow her into a decade of servitude." Derp.  Stupid is as stupid does.

 

You can argue that, that's exactly what Barris does during Val Royeux. Or really, what the good templars are doing, even those who take red lyrium

 

Even the Grey Wardens fall into this logic. It's like, everybody's stupid or something. 

 

Oh wait.

[Helios969]

^Helmetto: Completely agree.  So many of these threads seem to pop up about Bioware being biased for or against mages, how they disparage the Dalish, and I just don't see it.  Every organization/culture we come across in DAI is inherently flawed - big time.  Basically, people are stupid...and I saw enough stupidity in each group to not really sympathize with anyone.  And while I can empathize with individual plights across the spectrum, the systems in which they are locked into need to be torn down and rebuilt or replaced with something different.  That's the role the Inquisitor has...to reshape southern Thedas into what they perceive as a better path forward.  Fighting Corepheus is very nearly secondary to this.

[Korva]

How is the outcome of the templar mission better ? To me the templar mission felt very very meh.... The only good outcome that came of it is that Calpernia seemed more interesting than Samson and that Cory showed up more through those holograms.

 

If you save the templars, you get allies who have proven their mettle and determination by fighting at your side before during the recruitment mission and who know how badly they have failed and fallen. They have every motivation to be grateful, to get their act together and reclaim what they could and should be -- the champions of the just, the ones who stand against the darkness and do not falter. And that's what they do, their war table missions protect mages and non-mages alike. Side with the mages and you get a smug, self-centered gasbag sitting safe and sound in your tower and proclaiming she'd do it all over again. Fiona gets off scot-free, no trial, no demotion, no consequences, despite her huge role in the entire mess, not just in Redcliffe but in the whole war. I find that so deplorable that I just can't stomach picking the mages, and even if she was removed from the picture I'd prefer the templars for a variety of reasons (Calpernia, Cole's introduction, Corypheus' memories) including the theme of redeeming what should be a force for good. There's no similarly appealing theme behind picking the mages because they're such a mind-boggling, selfish clusterf*ck.

[MiyuEmi]

Personally, I think the game really gives Mages as much sh*t as possible.  They're blamed for every bad thing in the world and they're the only individuals you hear regularly spoken about who apparently can't handle their power.  Not much is said about the Templars who abuse theirs.  I think the game wants you to see that each side can be as bad as the other and make you make a decision based on your current character and your own interests.  I will almost always play as a mage in DA2 and DAI, but I will always play as a Rogue in DAO, so I do have a mage preference in my gameplay style to begin with, but I don't think the game wants you to choose the mages.  Each side has done serious wrong to their own case and plight, so just pick the one that feels right to your current character.  That's the message I get.

[Navasha]

I think a lot of it will always have to do with your own personal views on the situation as well.

 

For example, my own view is that Templars were a position of authority and therefore to me should be held to a higher standard.    A Templar who abuses their power to rape an innocent mage at night while she sleeps is a much bigger SOB than some 16 year old apprentice who is fighting off demon influences inside and scared of her "protectors" from the outside, who then finally loses and becomes an abomination who kills a dozen people. 

 

The whole lyrium addiction used for control adds at least some level sympathy for the Templars, but it still doesn't cover the atrocities that they are performing.

 

So while both sides are shown under good and bad light, to me, the Templars have a much higher burden of propriety due to their authoritative duty. 

[NRieh]

 

So we're going to pretend that stuff with Dorian didn't happen and that Alexius didn't invite us into his swag new castle that he totally stole? As opposed to Lucius basically being a dick and saying that we aren't wanted?

We did not need Lucius, we needed the Templars, both Cullen and Cassandra say that they can't all be like that, and Lucius was supposed to be taken care of by those nobles. 

 

Also, since the Inquisitor does not have any meta-gaming hints on his\her war table (like 'missions need level 7 and are mutually exclusive'), it's only logical to assume that once you recruit templars and deal with the Breach, you might as well have enough resources to deal with the Tervinters and bad mages (one way or another). Time-magic or blood magic - nothing works against it as good as a group of loyal and well-trained Templars.

 

Not that anyone expects the remaining side arriving as an army at your doorstep...

[Violetbliss]

I think the situation is rather that the mages recieve more attention -because- they are shunned, so far. It's more fun to write about the organization that everybody hates in character among local populace etc. Now, the templars are certainly heading towards a more interesting place, just because they have largely been damaged by the events in these games. I get they still have fans but I don't think they can be as exciting given their theme as guards of sorts in the first two games, along with how established they were already within society. They worked better to bounce things off of, rather than involve as a main plot. You see that clearly with Hawke's family vs templars, for example.

 

I think that now the factions are more equal than they ever have been and I'm actually excited about seeing where they will take the Templars from what just happened. Now they have a chance to move from the boring, typical Standard Knights Templar mode to something more interesting in my eyes. Again I realize it's subjective, but they share a lot of traits.

 

Also you can see some of the DA writing is an attempt to poke a hole in traditional things, such as making city elves a thing, making mages be contained and magic widely feared even from the lowest caster due to the threat of demons, etc. So that is also a reason, I think, that some focus bias exists.

 

For me it was definitely a given to go with Redcliffe, just because how immediate the threat seemed. So perhaps you could claim the immediacy was biased, but I don't know. Ultimately I think one choice will seem less interesting to somebody no matter how you put it.

[LobselVith8]

But however you pretty it up, you will never convince a player (who values their freedom to roam) that being stuck in a Mage Tower is a good thing. You can talk all you like about positive examples and of Mages who support, but you the player never had to live through that reality, You leave the Tower in the intro, and then as a Warden are free to roam as you please, That is not the reality of most mages, and the vast majority of players would be (and were) opposed to such an idea because it is something they would never want for themselves.

Ask yourself how interesting Origins would be if a Mage character were treated like other Mages. You are not confined to the tower, or kept on a short leash like the other mages, You do not have people treating you like a dangerous outcast, because your status as Warden supercedes that. Solas makes a point that is basically referencing this kind of thing when he speaks to Vivienne, as he criticizes such armchair philosophy. Its all well and good saying the Circle is necessary and beneficial when you are a Mage who never has to live in one or be confined by one, By a similar token, the player (even if play as a Mage) does not have the experience of the Circle, of being an everyday member of the Circle. Your mages are always free to roam, so any opinions you have on the Circles serving a function and being necessary will seem like utter hypocrisy,

As soon as you start talking about a group having its freedoms in any way curtailed, you instantly win over a large section of the audience who don't agree with such oppression, any oppression. Some characters may be okay with it, but many of those are older, 'establishment' figures like Irving and Wynne - people who are associated with lecturing and conservative values, people who (to many gamer's minds) represent different but no less antagonistic forms of restriction and authority,

Irving is actually quite pleased if the Hero of Ferelden asks for the Circle to be given its independence. He thanks you for freeing the mages from their "shackles".

He's also less than enthused about the Chantry and the templars. "And Chantry and templars are models of magnanimity? They would make us all Tranquil if they could, and call it a kindness. They fancy themselves our guardians, sitting smugly on their righteousness."

Wynne says in the City of Amaranthine that she opposes autonomy because the Chantry would kill all the mages rather than see them free.

[fhs33721]

 
Orsino doesn't know Hawke even if Bethany is in the Circle...  Orsino either truly has no idea who Hawke is, or he's a very good liar.  Considering Orsino is a Blood Mage First Enchanter, I'm going to go with the latter...
 

 
One can't ignore time travel?  Sure you can.  You can believe that time travel isn't happening, and that Dorian is a Tevinter spy allied with Alexius and attempting to kill you.  That the time travel aspect never comes up again shows how inconsequential it is...  If it were important, if it would have affected the Inquisition in some way, and the Inquisitor wouldn't have had a choice to go after the Templars(and the Inquisitor likely could have used time travel to get to the Templars after saving the mages).  That the choice exists shows that the time travel aspect isn't an important enough reason to go there if the Herald wishes not to...

Orsino probably does know who Hawke is if Bethany is in the circle. But even then all he knows is that s/he is this the rich noble sibling of one of his mages. And that deosn't change the fact that he has never met Hawke until after Quentin is long dead. So why should he tell some random chick/dude he has never met aything about Quentin?

 

Firstly time travel is highly volatile and Dorian fears that it might literally damage reality, so of course he won't propose that you use it to save the templars. Secondly time travel only works as long as the breach is open and you close the breach right after recruiting the mage. So you can't use it anymore after the templars are revealed to be corrupted by Corypheus at Haven.

[TobiTobsen]

If you save the templars, you get allies who have proven their mettle and determination by fighting at your side before during the recruitment mission and who know how badly they have failed and fallen. They have every motivation to be grateful, to get their act together and reclaim what they could and should be -- the champions of the just, the ones who stand against the darkness and do not falter. And that's what they do, their war table missions protect mages and non-mages alike. Side with the mages and you get a smug, self-centered gasbag sitting safe and sound in your tower and proclaiming she'd do it all over again. Fiona gets off scot-free, no trial, no demotion, no consequences, despite her huge role in the entire mess, not just in Redcliffe but in the whole war. I find that so deplorable that I just can't stomach picking the mages, and even if she was removed from the picture I'd prefer the templars for a variety of reasons (Calpernia, Cole's introduction, Corypheus' memories) including the theme of redeeming what should be a force for good. There's no similarly appealing theme behind picking the mages because they're such a mind-boggling, selfish clusterf*ck.

 

Don't forget how they act after you allied with them or conscripted them. Either they complain that they want better quarters and dont understand that they have to pull their own weight now or some of them actually attack Inquisition soldiers while trying to flee, if you "have the gall" to conscript them after the crap they pulled in Redcliffe.

 

I'll take Ser "we've failed horribly and will try our best to atone for our mistakes" Barris and Viviennes non-bitchy loyalist mages over Fiona and her people any day.

[Biotic Flash Kick]

actually the game have a strong bias FOR YOU TO DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS 

[LobselVith8]

Don't forget how they act after you allied with them or conscripted them. Either they complain that they want better quarters and dont understand that they have to pull their own weight now or some of them actually attack Inquisition soldiers while trying to flee, if you "have the gall" to conscript them after the crap they pulled in Redcliffe.

The templars complain, too, and Cassandra tells them to "deal with it".

I'll take Ser "we've failed horribly and will try our best to atone for our mistakes" Barris and Viviennes non-bitchy loyalist mages over Fiona and her people any day.

Vivienne complains plenty enough if you simply disagree with her views, and she throws a tantrum by rearranging furniture out of spite.

[TobiTobsen]

The templars complain, too, and Cassandra tells them to "deal with it".

 

You're right, but the templar complains because he feels the Inquisition is hindering the Templars in, what he thinks, are their duties. The mages complain because they don't live comfy enough or try to escape because they feel unjustly oppressed when the Inquisition conscripts them.

 

It felt different to me.

 

 

Vivienne complains plenty enough if you simply disagree with her views, and she throws a tantrum by rearranging furniture out of spite.

 

She sure does and my opinion of Vivienne ist not much higher than my opinion about Fiona. I was speaking about the mages that follow her. Those that work with the Inquisition without complaining or throwing temper tantrums.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

This is why it is good to be a Rogue. Neither a mage, nor a templar but still can kill things quickly and efficiently. Tech, gadgetry and roguish superiority. 

[Melca36]

I feel like the games really, really want you to side with the mages.

 

DAO: If you don't side with the mages, you pretty much lose the only real healer in the game.

DA2: Orsino is portrayed as a far more sympathetic figure who pretty much turns to blood magic out of complete desperation, versus Meredith who was a ball of crazy who with red lyrium slowly became even more crazy/extreme

DAI: Ignoring the fact that "MOTHERFUCKING TIME TRAVEL" is a much more pressing issue - I mean, you enemy can travel through time for gods sake, that's pretty hard to ignore - but you have to choose between killing Fiona, who, by the way, is the mother of one of DAO's potential love interests, but also someone who we're far more acquainted with through the books... versus some random douche bag who we've never met. Oh, and the fact that we don't even NEED to fight Calpernia.

 

I feel like in pretty much every game, siding with the Templars at all is viewed as the "evil" option. I don't recall a single time where the game didn't make me feel like an ass for siding with them. Except, no, I disagree with the mages at times, Templars during others. I'd like to make morally ambiguous decisions, but not when the decisions are heavily implied to have rights and wrongs in them. Either give me someone just as sympathetic as Fiona, or give me some **** I shouldn't care about.

 

Guess you didn't hear the ambient dialogue outside of the Chantry where the sister was talking about the abuse the mages endured in another Circle.  Or you didn't read the codex written by the Templar Knight Captain admitting they were partly at fault.

 

Despite the few honorable templars that chose to join the Inquisition....the Order got what they deserved and hopefully they will rebuild and become better than what they were.

[Ryzaki]

Yeah this is why I will never side with mages again:

 

But when I got to Redcliffe to make the alliance, you know what I found? The mages have signed up with the goddamn Tevinters! Oh wait, did I say "signed up"? I really meant "willingly sold themselves into slavery"! You know, to the Tevinter Imperium, the go-to cautionary tale for all magical corruption. The place filled with so much blood magic, demons, maleficar, and slaves that mages would call it ridiculously overblown Chantry propaganda if it didn't actually exist! Oh, and it turns out, I never met the real Fiona, that was some crazy doppelganger or something, no one seems to really know.

 

Oh, but it's not that bad, the Magister's son says he is secretly working with another Magister against his father. He's discovered weird time magic, and taken over a massive impenetrable fortress. All I have to do is trust this random Tevinter, walk alone and unarmed into the single most defensible location in all of Ferelden, while sending my spymaster and her best agents into the lion's den through a dodgy secret passage that may or may not exist. And the Tevinters may or may not know about it. All for a few hundred mages so stupid they actually allied with Tevinter, as I can't emphasize that enough. So they can join the Inquisition and slam my fragile mortal body with an unbelievable amount of magic, hoping it won't kill me or trigger something or react violently or Maker knows what else. And if I survive that, they can go on to fight demons, an enemy they are famously susceptible too, and frighten all the common people of Orlais and Ferelden.

 

That's a bad plan, to put it mildly. Risk vs. reward was skewed so far I just couldn't justify it. So I sided with the Templars, and didn't look back.

[Bigdoser]

Guess you didn't hear the ambient dialogue outside of the Chantry where the sister was talking about the abuse the mages endured in another Circle.  Or you didn't read the codex written by the Templar Knight Captain admitting they were partly at fault.

 

Despite the few honorable templars that chose to join the Inquisition....the Order got what they deserved and hopefully they will rebuild and become better than what they were.

Yeah I even recall a chantry sister banter where they note mages profess more faith in the maker than the templars when she was a sister in one of the circles. I was lol what? when I heard that.