Yep Abominations will take care of themselves, those slaughtered towns were standing in the way of progressive advancement and clearly blood mages enslaving and killing people is just misunderstandings...
Cass rebuilds the Seekers. Also, where are the abominations that people claimed were inevitable if I allied with the mages? Seems like that's just fear-mongering.
It should also be telling that mages always get more freedom and the templars are weakened regardless of whichever ending you get.
All it tells me is that the Templars were too difficult to hold accountable before, which is not new information.
Cass rebuilds the Seekers. Also, where are the abominations that people claimed were inevitable if I allied with the mages? Seems like that's just fear-mongering.
I'd have expected there to be a mention that they're becoming slightly more common, but do we see evidence that that's not the case? In the absence of evidence either way I'd have guessed that there are more abominations forming and fewer are being killed soon after being formed, unless the free mages still employ some of the Templar protocols for controlling them that I'd been afraid freeing the mages would have ended. (Such as the mandatory education and the Harrowing.)
Do we see evidence against their existence?
Where is the dialogue saying that abominations occur if you ally with the mages? If no proof shows up, it kinda proves that mages aren't going to randomly become abominations if given freedom. Seems treating them as equals is actually helpful.
Where is the dialogue saying that abominations occur if you ally with the mages? If no proof shows up, it kinda proves that mages aren't going to randomly become abominations if given freedom. Seems treating them as equals is actually helpful.
Saying that absence of evidence is the absence of evidence is logically questionable. As for the rest of it, did you mean that you thought it was supposed to happen right away? As in during the game? Because I would not have expected that. Trained mages almost never turn; I was expecting the problem to only become obvious over several generations as new mages are trained with more laxity. I was expecting something about that in the epilogue, but as for that... well, see my edited post. (Sorry about that, I try to be better about major edits for exactly that reason.)
It doesn't really prove anything one way or another really as only time will tell, the reasons mages become abominations or blood mages will exist regardless of the circles existence.
Cass rebuilds the Seekers. Also, where are the abominations that people claimed were inevitable if I allied with the mages? Seems like that's just fear-mongering.
I restored the Circles, where's the mention of serial abuses and whatnot
seems like its just fear mongering and over-exaggeration
Cass rebuilds the Seekers. Also, where are the abominations that people claimed were inevitable if I allied with the mages? Seems like that's just fear-mongering.
Saying that absence of evidence is the absence of evidence is logically questionable. As for the rest of it, did you mean that you thought it was supposed to happen right away? As in during the game? Because I would not have expected that. Trained mages almost never turn; I was expecting the problem to only become obvious over several generations as new mages are trained with more laxity. I was expecting something about that in the epilogue, but as for that... well, see my edited post. (Sorry about that, I try to be better about major edits for exactly that reason.)
You assume quite a bit here mate. Mages like abominations even less then templars. that the mages have a new college shows they are well aware of the dangers of untrained mages. also keep in mind that they finally can put more effort in research without being shutdown by the chantry.
You assume quite a bit here mate. Mages like abominations even less then templars. that the mages have a new college shows they are well aware of the dangers of untrained mages. also keep in mind that they finally can put more effort in research without being shutdown by the chantry.
Well, as I'd previously stated, if they're doing the same things the Templars did as far as mandatory training and the Harrowing this is less of a problem. I'd still prefer the mages had some oversight to prevent them from doing messed up things and from letting themselves get lax (less because I don't trust the mages and more because I don't trust anyone) but if the mages are taking the same precautions the Templars did you would expect them to do at least as well at controlling abominations.
They're pretty much interchangeable anyhow.
Agree. It seems to me that in most endings the Circles exist in the sense of institutions where Mages can gather to learn, control, and apply magic for good. It may go by the same name or a different one like the Bright Hand or the College of Enchanters, but they all serve the same function and are not trying not the be the system that was in place in DAO and DA2.
Not sure what happens in the specific example of Divine Leliana with Templars recruited but I imagine the rest of surviving Mages would form the College of Enchanters.
There will be nobles who feel that they're entitled to crap on the masses, but they can be countered too.
'Could be guilty' is not 'they will be guilty'. That's as silly as presuming that all templars are idiot rapists. Sure, some are, but that's not grounds to abolish them and lock them up.
I never said all, I said it only takes a couple to do massive amounts of damage. Look at what anders accomplished virtually by himself. Nobles are dangerous yes but they have to spread their influence through many circles to really do a lot of damage on a wide scale, for example, empress celene vs gaspard, both sides having lots of soldiers and siege weaponry. A few mages can be almost as dangerous and do not need to carry around such cumbersome devices wherever they go. They can also move in a more clandestine manner than a huge contingent of soldiers marching at the behest of a noble, so they have the bonus of being better able to sneak around and do their damage. A few mad men and women in a cave can threaten an entire nation, as seen by the events that lead cassandra to fame.
I love it when people bring up and compare the abuses/corruption of nobility to the dangers of magic.
Have we not moved very, very far away from giving the ruling members of society lots of unchecked power? We put tons of restrictions, rules, and regulations down on those people now so as to prevent them from abusing their power or corruption.
So how is freeing the mages a good idea, again?
Well mages have the advantage of being able to dispel magic at longer distance and without being addled by lyrium addiction.
Plus mages have a lot more public uses than warriors who are specialist knights.
Not to mention academy circles likely have a far lower administrative cost since you don't have to room, board, and feed your charges all the way until death.
No I like having a shadowy sec form because I conscripted them and had Cassandra as divine
I hope they do a couple dlc focusing on all possibility of the epilogues
How they would have the support of their family? Its not modern time where you have vacation, if their family dont work at the noble's lands they dont get paid, they dont get food, so how do you expect a family to support a child who is far away? In fact how do you expect a poor family to pay for their child to go to the College? How a family in a small village of Andersfel will know about the College of Enchanters?As Solas says to Vivienne, the old Circles just didn't work - everything seemed fine from the exterior, but it was a boiling kettle. No one can deny that magic is dangerous, and no one can deny that mages are just people deserving freedom. So, the only way is to search how to limit the risks while respecting them. Each ending provides a "new" solution which seems not so bad. A perfect one doesn' exist, IMHO. I like the idea of the College of Enchanters. Well treated children learning and growing with the support of their family are less likely to turn into abominations. And each kingdom is free to create a group (hired mages and/or templars) able to hunt and stop abominations, if the College itself, the Inquisition, the Seekers and/or the last Templars are not enough.
Besides, every potential mage will want to go to the College if it's an attractive place where you can study, and not a prison. Mothers won't hide their children from the templars anymore. So... less apostates, less danger, especially in small villages where they are hard to find. I prefer Leliana as Divine because she makes sure mages will be more popular, so there is less danger that people attack mages outside the College.
Hogwarts for me
Well, as I'd previously stated, if they're doing the same things the Templars did as far as mandatory training and the Harrowing this is less of a problem. I'd still prefer the mages had some oversight to prevent them from doing messed up things and from letting themselves get lax (less because I don't trust the mages and more because I don't trust anyone) but if the mages are taking the same precautions the Templars did you would expect them to do at least as well at controlling abominations.
And who is going to be the oversight here? one of the key reasons i severely dislike the circle system is that the templars and chantry are completely unable to judge magic because they themselves are not mages. Take jowan for example. Yeah he was stupid and needed a good boot under his ass but that the templars immediate went for tranquillity is not fit for such an act. and thats becuase they cannot judge magic properly.
I love it when people bring up and compare the abuses/corruption of nobility to the dangers of magic.
Have we not moved very, very far away from giving the ruling members of society lots of unchecked power? We put tons of restrictions, rules, and regulations down on those people now so as to prevent them from abusing their power or corruption.
So how is freeing the mages a good idea, again?
Why not? Mages are beholden to the law like anybody else. if they commit a crime they get ban hammerd . This is not the case for nobility.
The power of nobility lies in the connections , wealth and being part of the ruling structure that dictates the law. So i see no issue.
I'd have expected there to be a mention that [abominations are] becoming slightly more common, but do we see evidence that that's not the case? In the absence of evidence either way I'd have guessed that there are more abominations forming and fewer are being killed soon after being formed, unless the free mages still employ some of the Templar protocols for controlling them that I'd been afraid freeing the mages would have ended. (Such as the mandatory education and the Harrowing.)
As a scientist, I can tell you how to definitively prove something.
You begin with a hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that abominations are becoming more common.
You design an experiment, and you start small, a binary yes/no scenario, where you compare the results obtained from your test subjects to those of a control group. Your experiment is the game, where you will observe the number of witnessed and alleged abominations. Your control group would be previous games, novels, and comics.
You collect the data. How many abominations do you see? How many people submit verifiable reports of abominations?
You analyze the data. How does the number of abominations in the test group compare to the control. You seem to have done all this already, and come to the conclusion that there are no more abominations/reports of abominations than there were in previous installments. There are actually considerably less (pmuch an entire Circle in DAO and pmuch the same in DA2), but never mind.
If the data does not support your hypothesis, your hypothesis is wrong and you need to revise it. But most people would rather believe that the evidence is wrong rather than the fact that their hypothesis is flawed. It's probably human nature.
As a scientist, I can tell you how to definitively prove something.
You begin with a hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that abominations are becoming more common.
You design an experiment, and you start small, a binary yes/no scenario, where you compare the results obtained from your test subjects to those of a control group. Your experiment is the game, where you will observe the number of witnessed and alleged abominations. Your control group would be previous games, novels, and comics.
You collect the data. How many abominations do you see? How many people submit verifiable reports of abominations?
You analyze the data. How does the number of abominations in the test group compare to the control. You seem to have done all this already, and come to the conclusion that there are no more abominations/reports of abominations than there were in previous installments. There are actually considerably less (pmuch an entire Circle in DAO and pmuch the same in DA2), but never mind.
If the data does not support your hypothesis, your hypothesis is wrong and you need to revise it. But most people would rather believe that the evidence is wrong rather than the fact that their hypothesis is flawed. It's probably human nature.
I don't believe that answers my question: does the epilogue say whether or not there are more abominations per year after the Circles are disbanded? I'm not asking about the events in-game, because as I've previously stated I don't expect properly trained mages to go abomination at any great rate; my whole problem with this is that judging by the way the Cure for Tranquility is handled in Asunder the freed Circle mages don't seem to be making abomination prevention their top priority when training mages without Templar input. (Which is an assessment I might have to rethink if it turns out that there is evidence against it.)
And who is going to be the oversight here? one of the key reasons i severely dislike the circle system is that the templars and chantry are completely unable to judge magic because they themselves are not mages. Take jowan for example. Yeah he was stupid and needed a good boot under his ass but that the templars immediate went for tranquillity is not fit for such an act. and thats becuase they cannot judge magic properly.
If the rules are being made by a mage (such as a mage Inquisitor, or Vivienne) or someone who actually understands magic (such as an Inquisitor with the Arcane Knowledge perk), would you view this as less of a problem?
Retour en haut