1041 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumix19]

Did not think I had to specify free mages but there you go.

The point is is that if I said all Tevinter mages are trained for authority that would be true, Magisters and other high borns. But others are minor bureaucrats, others are slaves and others are simply fuel for blood magic.
Similarly saying Rivaini female mages are trained as seers does not have to denote that every single female was trained as one.
And even if we assume that all female mages are seers that doesn't mean they're all possessed, we know that's a practice they engage in but that doesn't mean they wall around possessed all day.

[MisterJB]

I can't prevent blood mages and abominations that already exist. And those who revealed themselves were slain, one way or the other. What I did was to save the lives of mages that were put to death sentence because an abomination in fancy armor decided they should pay for the crimes of an apostate that was not related to them. Perhaps Hawke could have helped the mages in the long term if the templar order didn't got in the way.

What if I could matemathically prove siding with the Templars saves more lives than siding with the mages?

 

Would you still side with them based entirely upon the perceived morality of your actions? I'm curious.

[Jaison1986]

 

What if I could matemathically prove siding with the Templars saves more lives than siding with the mages?

 

Would you still side with them based entirely upon the perceived morality of your actions? I'm curious.

 

 

That is impossible. Siding with the templars would result in the death of almost all mages in the circle, guilty and innocent alike. It's matemathically impossible to save more people by indulging a massacre.

[The Baconer]

Oh, I assume my interlocutors understand what is implicit.

It may be a mistake at times, I admit.

 

Why would it be implicit, unless you've endeavored to deflate your own argument? 

 

"It doesn't make sense to train all female mages to be learders" > "Why not? Are not all mages in Tevinter trained for authority? Because they're not (implicit)." 

 

So... you're agreeing with Lumix in that post, then? 

[thesuperdarkone2]

That is impossible. Siding with the templars would result in the death of almost all mages in the circle, guilty and innocent alike. It's matemathically impossible to save more people by indulging a massacre.

This. The whole point of siding with the templars is you think the circle should be annuled meaning you are agreeing to kill EVERY mage in the Circle. And before you say "but you can spare 3 mages", you do realize that Gaider said that any mage who survived an annulment is automatically made tranquil. 

 

If what world do you save more lives by agreeing to murder the mages rather than trying to save them?

[MisterJB]

That is impossible. Siding with the templars would result in the death of almost all mages in the circle, guilty and innocent alike. It's matemathically impossible to save more people by indulging a massacre.

The number of templar combatants are more numerous that the mage combatants given the fact they don't have a civillian population. Likewise, the mages are a minority when compared to the kirkwallers.
Let's say that there are 100 combat ready mages against 300 templars with a thousand civillian kirkwallers in the middle.
Whoever has Hawke assisting can kill 25 enemies per round with 50 civillians dying per round as well.

So, if Hawke sides with the mages, it will take 12 rounds to defeat the templars which leads to the death of 600 innocent civilians. You've killed six innocent people for every mage you saved.

On the other hand, if Hawke sides with the templars, it will take only four rounds to defeat them all which means that only 200 civillians die. That is a difference of 400 innocent people which is four times the number of the mages.

Logically; despite the fact these numbers aren't exact; we can see that siding with the templars saves more innocent lives than siding with the mages.

Then, there is also the fact that eliminating the mage population will eliminate the reason for contention within the city whereas saving them will not. By eliminating the reason for conflict, we eliminate it thus saving even more lives.

[Boost32]

The one who addressed its biggest problem, instead of putting a band-aid on it. 
 
 

 
Of course it would. The rebellion isn't clean or adequately contained, proper attention will be turned to Kirkwall, dialogues will be opened to determine why the Gallows had deteriorated in the first place. 
 
The alternative: Rebellion stamped out, Champion lends their support. Business goes on as usual. 
 
 

 
Why would you not have to specify free mages, when using a phrase as absolute as "all mages"?

Yes, the one who actually protected the city.

And it didnt turned out like that, you just helped the abominations and blood mages to kill more people.

[MisterJB]

This. The whole point of siding with the templars is you think the circle should be annuled meaning you are agreeing to kill EVERY mage in the Circle. And before you say "but you can spare 3 mages", you do realize that Gaider said that any mage who survived an annulment is automatically made tranquil. 

 

If what world do you save more lives by agreeing to murder the mages rather than trying to save them?

 

Third time today. Am I that frightening that you can't adress me directly?

 

Oh and the world would be the one in which lives the non-magical population of Kirkwall matter. Please don't join us, we're better off without you.

[Hazegurl]

That is impossible. Siding with the templars would result in the death of almost all mages in the circle, guilty and innocent alike. It's matemathically impossible to save more people by indulging a massacre.

It would be nice for the game to actually represent this.  My Templar siding Hawke spared Mages and also got Templars to spare more mages as they agreed that killing those who were surrendering was going too far.  Siding with the Mages in Kirkwall is pretty reckless.  But oh well, it all worked out in the end no matter what side is taken.

[MisterJB]

The point is is that if I said all Tevinter mages are trained for authority that would be true, Magisters and other high borns. But others are minor bureaucrats,

Bureaucrats are in a position of authority. Bottom line, mages are the upper class in Tevinter and they are not being gicen academic education in Circles just to have them being brick layers.

Sure, not everyone will make it to Magister but even the meanest of the mages is being trained to be the dominating class of Tevinter.

 

 

Similarly saying Rivaini female mages are trained as seers does not have to denote that every single female was trained as one.
And even if we assume that all female mages are seers that doesn't mean they're all possessed, we know that's a practice they engage in but that doesn't mean they wall around possessed all day.

 

Let us look at it logically.

Mages are one in hundred. Female mages, even lesser. Therefore, depending on the number of more traditional communities in Rivain, the demand could be quite high indeed.

And it's not as if every Seer has to be a leader. It's a cultural practice. Just like every Avvar mage is trained by a spirit but not everyone becomes an augur.

And we're talking about a communion of souls, not putting on and taking off a shirt. Even lyrium is needed for the ritual to remove a spirit and that is not cheap. I very much doubt Seers, who use spirits for more than a period of education, regularly remove them.
 

 

[The Baconer]

And it didnt turned out like that, you just helped the abominations and blood mages to kill more people.

 

Of course it did. It just took more blood and death beyond Kirkwall for the Chantry to finally fix its face. That permutation of Hawke will be remembered for taking the first step in mending the Circle system, by the Templars no less, while the Viscount Hawke's disappearance is considered a blessing. 

[MisterJB]

Why would it be implicit, unless you've endeavored to deflate your own argument? 

 

"It doesn't make sense to train all female mages to be learders" > "Why not? Are not all mages in Tevinter trained for authority? Because they're not (implicit)." 

 

So... you're agreeing with Lumix in that post, then? 

 

What is implicit is that I would not count slaves amidst that number, especially considering Rivain does not have a class equivalent.
 

[thesuperdarkone2]

Third time today. Am I that frightening that you can't adress me directly?

 

Oh and the world would be the one in which lives the non-magical population of Kirkwall matter. Please don't join us, we're better off without you.

Someone seems salty. Did your jimmies get rustled over an internet argument?

[MisterJB]

Someone seems salty. 

 

Not at all. Bottom feeders are entertaining.
 

[thesuperdarkone2]

It would be nice for the game to actually represent this.  My Templar siding Hawke spared Mages and also got Templars to spare more mages as they agreed that killing those who were surrendering was going too far.  Siding with the Mages in Kirkwall is pretty reckless.  But oh well, it all worked out in the end no matter what side is taken.

How is it reckless to not support killing an entire group of people for something they didn't even do? If Meredith ordered the death of every Ferelden in Kirkwall since Anders came from Ferelden, would you consider it reckless to fight against her then?

 

Also, Gaider said that any mages who survived an annulment are made tranquil, so all those mages you spared were condemned to a fate worse than death, not to mention it is made clear that practically every mage in the gallows was killed if you sided with the templars.

[Jaison1986]

 

The number of templar combatants are more numerous that the mage combatants given the fact they don't have a civillian population. Likewise, the mages are a minority when compared to the kirkwallers.
Let's say that there are 100 combat ready mages against 300 templars with a thousand civillian kirkwallers in the middle.
Whoever has Hawke assisting can kill 25 enemies per round with 50 civillians dying per round as well.

So, if Hawke sides with the mages, it will take 12 rounds to defeat the templars which leads to the death of 600 innocent civilians. You've killed six innocent people for every mage you saved.

On the other hand, if Hawke sides with the templars, it will take only four rounds to defeat them all which means that only 200 civillians die. That is a difference of 400 innocent people which is four times the number of the mages.

Logically; despite the fact these numbers aren't exact; we can see that siding with the templars saves more innocent lives than siding with the mages.

Then, there is also the fact that eliminating the mage population will eliminate the reason for contention within the city whereas saving them will not. By eliminating the reason for conflict, we eliminate it thus saving even more lives.

 

 

But why would these civilians die anyway? For whatever side you follow, you aways run in the same group of blood mages, abominations and templars. We never witness civilians getting caught in the cross fire, as they either fled or died during the chantry explosion. And the worst of the blattle happens in the gallows, an isolated area were the mages and templars fought. The only lives at stake there are from either side, and templars are the aggressors that turned hostile on the mage population.

[Xilizhra]

There are plenty of abominations in Kirkwall after you choose your side.

The ones you kill regardless of which side you're on?

[The Baconer]

By eliminating the reason for conflict, we eliminate it thus saving even more lives.

 

Eliminating the reason for conflict would be overhauling the administration of the Gallows. By your own paradigm, the trade would be 600 deaths on one evening, with many more saved in the future as Kirkwall is relieved of the burden of an improperly managed Circle system. 

 

 

What is implicit is that I would not count slaves amidst that number, especially considering Rivain does not have a class equivalent.

 

"Mage" is not a class.

 

I wonder what other disinformation could be produced using similar tactics: "Every person in Tevinter is a free citizen! ... I didn't know I had to specify non-slaves." 

[MisterJB]

But why would these civilians die anyway? For whatever side you follow, you aways run in the same group of blood mages, abominations and templars. We never witness civilians getting caught in the cross fire, as they either fled or died during the chantry explosion. And the worst of the blattle happens in the gallows, an isolated area were the mages and templars fought. The only lives at stake there are from either side, and templars are the aggressors that turned hostile on the mage population.

Let us acknowledge game mechanics for what they are. Sure, you don't see civilians but it's impossible that battles between Templars and mages and Abominations in the streets aren't causing victims.

 

A Templar actually has to want to kill a civillian in order for it to happen. A mage only has to miss a fireball or a cone of cold or become an Abomination. They will, logically, be the ones causing the collateral damage.

 

 

Eliminating the reason for conflict would be overhauling the administration of the Gallows. By your own paradigm, the trade would be 600 deaths on one

No reason we can't do it in the future without sacrificing those 600 today.

 

 

"Mage" is not a class.

 

I wonder what other disinformation could be produced using similar tactics: "Every person in Tevinter is a free citizen! ... I didn't know I had to specify non-slaves." 

"Mage" has always identified a class of their own. Sometime upper, sometimes lower.

But mages has always been and will always be a class of their own. And so are slaves.

 

 

[Xilizhra]

 

The number of templar combatants are more numerous that the mage combatants given the fact they don't have a civillian population. Likewise, the mages are a minority when compared to the kirkwallers.
Let's say that there are 100 combat ready mages against 300 templars with a thousand civillian kirkwallers in the middle.
Whoever has Hawke assisting can kill 25 enemies per round with 50 civillians dying per round as well.

So, if Hawke sides with the mages, it will take 12 rounds to defeat the templars which leads to the death of 600 innocent civilians. You've killed six innocent people for every mage you saved.

On the other hand, if Hawke sides with the templars, it will take only four rounds to defeat them all which means that only 200 civillians die. That is a difference of 400 innocent people which is four times the number of the mages.

Logically; despite the fact these numbers aren't exact; we can see that siding with the templars saves more innocent lives than siding with the mages.

Then, there is also the fact that eliminating the mage population will eliminate the reason for contention within the city whereas saving them will not. By eliminating the reason for conflict, we eliminate it thus saving even more lives.

The math doesn't work here, given that A. it takes the same amount of time for Hawke regardless of which side they're on, and B. Hawke wouldn't have to kill all of the templars, as Hawke's objective is escape, not eradication. Also, the mages leaving the city is removing the reason for contention exactly as much as killing them all.

 

 

Let us acknowledge game mechanics for what they are. Sure, you don't see civilians but it's impossible that battles between Templars and mages and Abominations in the streets aren't causing victims.

 

A Templar actually has to want to kill a civillian in order for it to happen. A mage only has to miss a fireball or a cone of cold or become an Abomination. They will, logically, be the ones causing the collateral damage.

I would say that the templars are responsible for the deaths caused by every demon attack they failed to prevent because they were trying to slaughter the mages. At least the city guard stepped up to the challenge in their stead.

[The Baconer]

No reason we can't do it in the future without sacrificing those 600 today.

 

There's no reason to wait. That's the point of the sacrifice: to avoid the otherwise commonplace reaction of "Maybe we'll get to it. Eventually."

 

 

"Mage" has always identified a class of their own. Sometime upper, sometimes lower.

 

Like "Humans" or "Elves".

 

 

But mages has always been and will always be a class of their own. And so are slaves.

 

Yes, a class that can conveniently be not counted as people for the sake of statistics and demographics! I wasn't expecting you to have some common ground with the Vints in that aspect. 

 

"Every person in Tevinter can hold the office of Magister! ... Oh, I didn't know I had to specify non-mundane."

[Hazegurl]

How is it reckless to not support killing an entire group of people for something they didn't even do? If Meredith ordered the death of every Ferelden in Kirkwall since Anders came from Ferelden, would you consider it reckless to fight against her then?

 

Also, Gaider said that any mages who survived an annulment are made tranquil, so all those mages you spared were condemned to a fate worse than death, not to mention it is made clear that practically every mage in the gallows was killed if you sided with the templars.

 

If we were to look at the the Kirkwall Mage-Templar situation a bit more realistically. There is no way a Mage supporting Hawke would have walked out of that alive.  If anything he would have simply died a maytr.

 

The mages are small in number compared to the Templars.

Templars are trained for combat against Mages.

Templars can nullify magic.

The Gallows was cut off from the Mainland.

 

Hawke had a small band of friends and a small group of mages, some of whom did not wish to fight the Templars.  Which means that Hawke and his merry band would have been responsible for fighting every Templar to save the Mages, whom would have ended up dead anyway, making the fight with the Templars entirely pointless.

 

Realistically speaking, there is no way the Mages could have escaped the Gallows, it's entire design is built on offering very little if no escape options.  The ending slides about saving a lot of Mages if siding with Mages is ridiculous. How did they even get out of the Gallows?  It's surrounded by water and you need a boat and I doubt the Templars would leave boats just sitting there for Mages to use to escape.  if they did, then how many Mages managed to fit into the boats? Sounds like a big plot hole.

 

And no matter how good Hawke is, he is severely out numbered and reinforcements (Zevran et al), don't even show up until the Meredieth boss fight.  If Hawke is a Mage, he's screwed even more because there is no way, Him, Anders, and Merrill would have been able to combat the Templars using anything other than Blood Magic.

 

Overall, it would have made more sense for a Mage support option to be for Hawke to deny the Templars aid, then try to escape with his life rather than actively try to rescue the doomed Mages. 

 

Who cares if they're made Tranquil...if they were.  At least they lived. 

[Jaison1986]

 

Who cares if they're made Tranquil...if they were.  At least they lived. 

 

You wouldn't say that about Dorian,

[Hazegurl]

You wouldn't say that about Dorian,

Dorian wasn't there.

[Boost32]

Of course it did. It just took more blood and death beyond Kirkwall for the Chantry to finally fix its face. That permutation of Hawke will be remembered for taking the first step in mending the Circle system, by the Templars no less, while the Viscount Hawke's disappearance is considered a blessing.

Lol, this one was funny.