359 réponses à ce sujet

[straykat]

Cole inhabits the body of a mage who starved to death in the White Spire. Bull grew up with the Qun and was so shaken by what he's seen on Seheron that he willingly went and got himself re-educated to try and move past it. Varric is from Kirkwall. Solas is from a time when civil war and slavery were commonplace.

 

In what way is Sera the only one from a hell hole?

 

It's just more relatable. All of those others are fantasy bullshit.. they carry weight within the context of DA, for sure. But lower class stuff is more relatable.

[rapscallioness]

Really? lol. Never tried that.

 

I did side with them once, but I think he was a Warden. I just didn't like it because Hawke became Viscount.. and now I found out Gaider said that was a mistake too.

 

It was very hard to do. After that I reloaded. It just felt like an odd thing to do.

[rapscallioness]

As far as DAI, on a very small and straightforward way, I think little things in the game betrayed the seriousness of the apocalyptic event happening.

 

One small thing that I noticed was how well dressed and clean and well off looking many of the refugees were. Aside from the initial cutscene with Mother Giselle and the refugees laid out, they don;t look like anything bad is happening.

 

They're well dressed some of them; clean; They have great posture. It made the idea that they were supposedly starving, freezing, and seriously injured seem disconnected.

 

It's like I'm getting two different messages. The visual is telling me that they're doing pretty damn awesome, but the story is telling me, oh, no, things are very bad.

 

It's a small thing, but...

[ShadowLordXII]

That is evidence, that you fail to notice it and ignore facts is a problem here. Question is simple are mages dangerous and pose threat to world/society safety, answer is simple yes. So basically we deal with fact that mages pose threat to society and evidence of that is nature of being mage. So no ,my justification of killing her is that she is dangerous and saving her life (1 life) isn't worth risking life of countless people. 

. 

 

Wrong. That's an assumption based on an unfounded subjective absolution.

 

Except that the virtue of being a mage does not automatically make you dangerous. If a mage chooses to misuse their magic or apply dangerous means to their magic, then they are dangerous. Assuming that every mage is dangerous by virtue of being a mage is Chantry propaganda and that line of thinking is exactly what led to the Mage-Templar Conflict in the first place.

 

So going back to your question: Are mages dangerous and pose a threat to world/society safety? No. Did Bethany do anything that warrants her execution? No. Did she demonstrate any action that would make her dangerous? No. Is there proof that Bethany is a Blood Mage or was taught blood magic? No.

 

Maybes; Ifs; Mays; and Could's aren't a logical or objective basis for deciding someone's life without any concrete proof and evidence. It would be different if Bethany had demonstrated any problematic signs or symptoms, but she didn't. The worst that she did was fight for her life against crazy templars trying to kill her for a crime that the Circle had nothing to do with.

[straykat]

Wrong. That's an assumption based on an unfounded subjective absolution.

 

Except that the virtue of being a mage does not automatically make you dangerous. If a mage chooses to misuse their magic or apply dangerous means to their magic, then they are dangerous. Assuming that every mage is dangerous by virtue of being a mage is Chantry propaganda and that line of thinking is exactly what led to the Mage-Templar Conflict in the first place.

 

So going back to your question: Are mages dangerous and pose a threat to world/society safety? No. Did Bethany do anything that warrants her execution? No. Did she demonstrate any action that would make her dangerous? No. Is there proof that Bethany is a Blood Mage or was taught blood magic? No.

 

Maybes; Ifs; Mays; and Could's aren't a logical or objective basis for deciding someone's life without any concrete proof and evidence. It would be different if Bethany had demonstrated any problematic signs or symptoms, but she didn't. The worst that she did was fight for her life against crazy templars trying to kill her for a crime that the Circle had nothing to do with.

 

It's not even Chantry propaganda. At least, not officially. It's the Chantry that teaches mages in the Circle.. and makes them even more powerful. It's the Chantry that says it's a gift, not a curse.

[Arvaarad]

That's just like a Qunari fan. Relegating everyone else as frail idiots without any "certainity".

 

On the contrary, I'm accepting that uncertainty is a part of life, and that it's not as sterile and easy as most players play it. Doing things that are noble and good is hard, and realistically, not every protagonist is going to live up to that 100% of the time. Real people get stressed and tired and scared.

 

I'm dismayed by the mentality that a protagonist can only do evil if it's (1) an "evil" run or (2) for the greater good. Most of the evil that happens in reality doesn't fall into one of those two buckets. It's negligence, or willful ignorance, or getting swept up in a mob, or fear.

 

I'd rather confront the idea that normal people are capable of evil. I think it's soothing, but dangerous, to wave evil away as cackling villainy or extreme adherence to the ends justifying the means. In other words, "I never have to worry about myself doing evil, because I don't fall into either of those categories."

[The Baconer]

Do you think it's the latter?

The entire game tried to force you into caring about your family when you might want to roleplay them hating their disgusting apostate family.

 

I think the problem is that there aren't any dialogue options to establish this mentality earlier on, so it kind of just becomes an 11th-hour heel turn. Still, I wouldn't put this choice under the "childish nonsense" I mentioned earlier. That would be more like selling Fenris back into slavery. 

 

 

There's also, potentially, the option that Hawke is terrified of Meredith.

 

Hawke doesn't know they're the protagonist. Hawke doesn't know they'll win. Hawke doesn't know if they can protect Bethany, even assuming that they do win. Hawke faces a whole constellation of uncertainty that we, the players lounging safely on our couch or desk chair, don't have to consider.

 

Given what Hawke has already dealt with... I can't buy it. The context simply doesn't make it believable. 

[straykat]

On the contrary, I'm accepting that uncertainty is a part of life, and that it's not as sterile and easy as most players play it. Doing things that are noble and good is hard, and realistically, not every protagonist is going to live up to that 100% of the time. Real people get stressed and tired and scared.

 

I'm dismayed by the mentality that a protagonist can only do evil if it's (1) an "evil" run or (2) for the greater good. Most of the evil that happens in reality doesn't fall into one of those two buckets. It's negligence, or willful ignorance, or getting swept up in a mob, or fear.

 

I'd rather confront the idea that normal people are capable of evil. I think it's soothing, but dangerous, to wave evil away as cackling villainy or extreme adherence to the ends justifying the means. In other words, "I never have to worry about myself doing evil, because I don't fall into either of those categories."

 

That's good (about uncertainty), but like Bacononer, I don't find it believable either. At this point, this is the tail end of Act 3 and the Champion of Kirkwall. I can play timid Hawke when meeting Thrask at the caves in Act I.. not as much here.

 

Even the most uncertain character tells you to finally make a choice. "Watch for that moment, and when it comes, do not hesitate to leap".

[actionhero112]

Wrong. That's an assumption based on an unfounded subjective absolution.

 

Except that the virtue of being a mage does not automatically make you dangerous. If a mage chooses to misuse their magic or apply dangerous means to their magic, then they are dangerous. Assuming that every mage is dangerous by virtue of being a mage is Chantry propaganda and that line of thinking is exactly what led to the Mage-Templar Conflict in the first place.

 

So going back to your question: Are mages dangerous and pose a threat to world/society safety? No. Did Bethany do anything that warrants her execution? No. Did she demonstrate any action that would make her dangerous? No. Is there proof that Bethany is a Blood Mage or was taught blood magic? No.

 

Maybes; Ifs; Mays; and Could's aren't a logical or objective basis for deciding someone's life without any concrete proof and evidence. It would be different if Bethany had demonstrated any problematic signs or symptoms, but she didn't. The worst that she did was fight for her life against crazy templars trying to kill her for a crime that the Circle had nothing to do with.

 

I mean if you have powers above that of other people, you are innately more dangerous than them. 

 

The argument is not whether all mages are good or bad. They exist on a diverse morality spectrum like every other group. The argument is that a bad mage is much more threatening than a bad individual without magical ability. A magical child who throws a tantrum can bring down an entire region, while a nonmagical child can never reach such destruction. 

When you compound that with issues like demonic possession and the corruptive qualities of blood magic (not that it is innately bad either) mages are more dangerous than other people just by virtue of being mages. 

[giveamanafish...]

It's just more relatable. All of those others are fantasy bullshit.. they carry weight within the context of DA, for sure. But lower class stuff is more relatable.

Iron Bull and Varric suffering from PTSD may not be relatable to you but its not 'fantasy bullshit'.

[ShadowLordXII]

It's not even Chantry propaganda. At least, not officially. It's the Chantry that teaches mages in the Circle.. and makes them even more powerful. It's the Chantry that says it's a gift, not a curse.

 

 

It's also the Chantry who essentially taught Mages to fear themselves and held over them the threat of death and lobotomy if they didn't keep in line. The Chantry also hunt non-circle mages because they might be blood mages. The Chantry also turned a blind eye to the abuses that the Templar Order levied on the Mages. The Chantry also forces mages to all, but sever their ties to the outside world to better control them.

 

Which all in turn feeds the very things that the Chantry fears about mages. All of that pressure, prejudice, distrust, abuse and etc. just led to more blood mages, abominations, madness and chaos. All because of the Chantry's absolutist paranoia.

 

It's equal parts self-fulfilling prophecy and criminal labeling theory.

[AresKeith]

That is not evidence. Is this a language barrier thing? You literally have no understanding of what evidence or rationality means. Your justifications for killing her are all based on basic errors of reasoning.

This is why we don't take TKS serious at all

[straykat]

It's also the Chantry who essentially taught Mages to fear themselves and held over them the threat of death and lobotomy if they didn't keep in line. The Chantry also hunt non-circle mages because they might be blood mages. The Chantry also turned a blind eye to the abuses that the Templar Order levied on the Mages. The Chantry also forces mages to all, but sever their ties to the outside world to better control them.

 

Which all in turn feeds the very things that the Chantry fears about mages. All of that pressure, prejudice, distrust, abuse and etc. just led to more blood mages, abominations, madness and chaos. All because of the Chantry's absolutist paranoia.

 

It's equal parts self-fulfilling prophecy and criminal labeling theory.

 

There's definitely things they need to work out, but the idea that they hate them is off. Especially like how some of the posters here propose. That's extreme.

[Dabrikishaw]

The point here is, if you seriously think Bethany would take up Blood Magic then you need to tell everyone on the forum what you're smoking.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Wrong. That's an assumption based on an unfounded subjective absolution.

 

Except that the virtue of being a mage does not automatically make you dangerous. If a mage chooses to misuse their magic or apply dangerous means to their magic, then they are dangerous. Assuming that every mage is dangerous by virtue of being a mage is Chantry propaganda and that line of thinking is exactly what led to the Mage-Templar Conflict in the first place.

 

So going back to your question: Are mages dangerous and pose a threat to world/society safety? No. Did Bethany do anything that warrants her execution? No. Did she demonstrate any action that would make her dangerous? No. Is there proof that Bethany is a Blood Mage or was taught blood magic? No.

 

Maybes; Ifs; Mays; and Could's aren't a logical or objective basis for deciding someone's life without any concrete proof and evidence. It would be different if Bethany had demonstrated any problematic signs or symptoms, but she didn't. The worst that she did was fight for her life against crazy templars trying to kill her for a crime that the Circle had nothing to do with.

 

It isn't subjective assumption unless you want to tell me that every world-threatening disaster we know was caused by mages and because of danger came with being mage is just an assumption not a fact.

 

First and foremost mage can't chose to not be dangerous with exception of applying tranquility but then person no longer is a mage.  Mage is always dangerous because magic is unstable and it not always leads to outcome you want even if you don't mean bad things to happen and being mage means being exposed to demonic influence what is just another threat that mages pose. So what you are saying is nothing more than ridiculous pro-mage propaganda that tries paint mage being dangerous as matter of choice rather than nature of being mage. 

 

"Are mages dangerous and pose a threat to world/society safety?"

 

Yes , considering that every world-theratening disaster in thedas was caused by mages and because of their powers.

 

"Did Bethany do anything that warrants her execution?"

 

Maybe , how do you know she didn't? Are you a omniscient that you know what she did and didn't?

 

"Did she demonstrate any action that would make her dangerous?"

Yes, she killed quite a lot of people what makes her dangerous (aside of danger tha comes with being mage), but as i said lack of action at the moment doesn't equatate not being dangerous. That Uldred didn't attack you when you first met didn't mean he won't end as abomnation or isn't blood mage.

 

"Is there proof that Bethany is a Blood Mage or was taught blood magic?"

Was there a proof that Orisno practiced blood magic? No there wasn't , just because you don't have evidence of someone doing something doesn't mean they aren't doing that.She was member of extremly corrupted circle , if she wasn't blood mage or abomnation (what you couldn't have known) she was just tiny part sacrificed to ensue survival of entire machine what is logical thing to do. 

 

As i said fact is poses Bethany is threat to society by mere fact of being mage. 

 

 

 

The point here is, if you seriously think Bethany would take up Blood Magic then you need to tell everyone on the forum what you're smoking.

Give ma a logical reason why Bethany is immune on temptations that come with power (blood magic)?

[giveamanafish...]

**Mod edit**

I enjoy Iron Bull

[actionhero112]

The point here is, if you seriously think Bethany would take up Blood Magic then you need to tell everyone on the forum what you're smoking.

 

From which perspective? A resentful Hawke or the outside observer? 

 

It's the heat of the moment, you've just seen the moderate Orsino commit an act of desecration and desperation that no one had anticipated, not even Meredith. You don't know who to trust at this point, blood magic has been responsible for so much in Kirkwall including the death of your mother. It's enough to call into question the loyalties of a templar leaning Hawke, especially if the two siblings have a rival relationship. 

[Arvaarad]

That's good (about uncertainty), but like Bacononer, I don't find it believable either. At this point, this is the tail end of Act 3 and the Champion of Kirkwall. I can play timid Hawke when meeting Thrask at the caves in Act I.. not as much here.

 

Even the most uncertain character tells you to finally make a choice. "Watch for that moment, and when it comes, do not hesitate to leap".

 

True, they've definitely defeated a lot up to this point. 

 

Though to be fair to Hawke, opposing their own city's peacekeeping force is a much bigger commitment than opposing street thugs or an invading army. Even if Hawke defeats them, the rest of Kirkwall will run Hawke out of town, at a minimum. Far more likely, Hawke will be forced on the run for the rest of their life, for aiding maleficarum.

 

This isn't "oh, we fight some street thugs but afterwards we can go home". This is "we fight these templars, then resign ourselves to the life of a fugitive." Even an apostate Hawke had a relatively normal life, so long as they used blood magic to wipe the memories of templars who saw them cast errrrrr were careful about not casting in front of people. A Hawke who opposed the templars would be marked by all of Thedas.

 

(Hawke does end up in hiding either way, but Hawke doesn't know that in advance)

[giveamanafish...]

**Mod edit**

I'm just shocked that you would call me a dork simply for correcting you. i get that you have strong opinions about things, but that doesn't justify insults.

[ShadowLordXII]

There's definitely things they need to work out, but the idea that they hate them is off. Especially like how some of the posters here propose. That's extreme.

 

The Chantry certainly allowed fear to dictate their policies and actions.

 

That's never the emotion that you want driving you in complicated situations especially with mages involved.

 

For the record, I'm a moderate on this topic. Considering that magic can be used for crazy evil and madness, some healthy fear and caution is warranted. But the Chantry clearly took the wrong approach in mindset and method even if their ideas were somewhat in the right place.

[straykat]

The Chantry certainly allowed fear to dictate their policies and actions.

 

That's never the emotion that you want driving you in complicated situations especially with mages involved.

 

For the record, I'm a moderate on this topic. Considering that magic can be used for crazy evil and madness, some healthy fear and caution is warranted. But the Chantry clearly took the wrong approach in mindset and method even if their ideas were somewhat in the right place.

 

I agree.. I just don't think the Chantry is founded on any of this. It's not "Andrastian", I guess. Or in the Chant. But you still get plenty of it from some Templars... which, I guess, is the whole point why things need to change a bit after DA2.

[TheKomandorShepard]

It's also the Chantry who essentially taught Mages to fear themselves and held over them the threat of death and lobotomy if they didn't keep in line. The Chantry also hunt non-circle mages because they might be blood mages. The Chantry also turned a blind eye to the abuses that the Templar Order levied on the Mages. The Chantry also forces mages to all, but sever their ties to the outside world to better control them.

 

Which all in turn feeds the very things that the Chantry fears about mages. All of that pressure, prejudice, distrust, abuse and etc. just led to more blood mages, abominations, madness and chaos. All because of the Chantry's absolutist paranoia.

 

It's equal parts self-fulfilling prophecy and criminal labeling theory.

 

Wow , so much pro-mage propaganda. In first place chantry didn't taught Mages to fear themselves all chantry teaches on that matter are dangers that come with being mage. (dangers that are real not chantry just come up with)

 

Then funniest part is that you blame chantry for more blood magic , madness and chaos despite that Tevinter was always full of those things long before chantry even existed and chantry methodology prevented a lot of disastesr and never lead to disaster on world-scale in contrast to Tevinter that does that a lot.

[KaiserShep]

There is evidence , she is a mage and thus is dangerous by mere fact of being mage and there was good chance she could be blood mage as circle was infested with blood mages and extremely corrupted mages. Now , why i should risk lives of countless people she may destroy just to save her (1 life) ?

 

Well, at least you make it easy 

 

By the logic here, adherence to Chantry law is irrelevant, and all that other stuff is just a red herring. Purging a Circle is perfectly justified for the simple fact that it's filled with mages, as all mages have the capacity to be bloodmages. So the only good and proper way to deal with mages is to preemptively eliminate them and remove their potential to be maleficars. After all, you can't know that 100% of the population within a Circle isn't a bloodmage, so it stands to reason that by removing them, you only have a greater chance of saving the world from their [probable] wicked bloody badness. If Meredith called for the Right of Annulment because a mage left an enchanted bag of dog sh** on her doorstep with an unquenchable flame that will never go out no matter how much you stomp on it, the filthy maleficarum's gotta go. 

[KaiserShep]

**Mod edit**

 

Don't mind stray. He was bitten by a viddathari elf. 

[TheKomandorShepard]

Well, at least you make it easy 

 

By the logic here, adherence to Chantry law is irrelevant. Purging a Circle is perfectly justified for the simple fact that it's filled with mages, as all mages have the capacity to be bloodmages. So the only good and proper way to deal with mages is to preemptively eliminate them and remove their potential to be maleficars. 

Not , rly you just refuse to listen what im saying and decide add little from you to what im saying.

 

First and foremost, RoA applies when circle goes out of control (for one reason or another) thus they are forced sacrifice everyone in it because threat became to big to risk and benefit to little so in other word circle is deemed as lost cause.If you ask me yes extermination of mages is best solution to avoid future disasters, but chantry applies killing policy only when situation gets out of hand.