1158 réponses à ce sujet

[Qun00]

We've had to choose between the two sides in all three games and the large majority of players choose mages without thinking twice.

And why wouldn't they? One's first instinct is to help the oppressed. But if it is to be presented as a choice, it shouldn't be so black and white.

While there are a few reasons to be pro Circle and respect the templars' real purpose, the games failed to provide one that is just as compelling as the noble cause of mage freedom.

[DeathScepter]

Mage, regardless if he is a blood mage or not, is worthy a platoon of Soldiers given their many abilities and this is outside if that given mage is an abomination. I do believe that The Circles are the best place for a mage for safe(for the public and themselves) in addition for extra training to hone their skills.

[Hellion Rex]

We've had to choose between the two sides in all three games and the large majority of players choose mages without thinking twice.

And why wouldn't they? One's first instinct is to help the oppressed. But if it is to be presented as a choice, it shouldn't be so black and white.

While there are a few reasons to be pro Circle and respect the templars' real purpose, the games failed to provide one that is just as compelling as the noble cause of mage freedom.

I disagree. "Mage Freedom" helped to invoke a war that lit up the Ferelden and Orlesian countryside, due to the actions of Fiona and Adrian. While I will not forgive nor forget those Templars AND Seekers that were either corrupt or unjust, neither does that excuse certain individuals on the mage side. DA2 was the only installment of the three main games that I feel had a serious imbalance between the two. We got taken to one of the absolute worst Circles in Thedas, rife with both magical and Templar corruption. 

 

I don't find mage freedom to be quite compelling at all, as pure mage autonomy is extremely problematic, with the possibility of possession and blood magic are incredibly high if there is no check to balance the mage freedom.

[Sports72Xtrm]

At the heart of it, templars know they are cruel and mages know they are dangerous. You say it shouldn't be so black and white. Maybe one shouldn't aspire to be more white and just embrace being black.

 

[Lord of War]

We've had to choose between the two sides in all three games and the large majority of players choose mages without thinking twice.

And why wouldn't they? One's first instinct is to help the oppressed. But if it is to be presented as a choice, it shouldn't be so black and white.

While there are a few reasons to be pro Circle and respect the templars' real purpose, the games failed to provide one that is just as compelling as the noble cause of mage freedom.

 

Helping the oppressed! How awful! How unfair!

 

Here's the thing: helping thugs kidnap, brutalize, intimidate and lobotomize people for the way they're born will never be as compelling as freeing them, and that's good. The purpose of the templars is to control mages for the Chantry, as weapons and as a way to make a pretty profit (and to intimidate/overthrow governments that don't align with their interests). It shouldn't be compelling if you aren't a zealot.

 

I mean, DAO doesn't give a particularly compelling case for siding with the werewolves either, does it?

[MisterJB]

"Opressed"

 

Also, you need to do some fact checking. David Gaider has repeteadly stated none of the Circle's profits go to the Chantry. Nor have we ever seen them being used to "intimidate/overthrow governments"

[Lord of War]

"Opressed"

 

Also, you need to do some fact checking. David Gaider has repeteadly stated none of the Circle's profits go to the Chantry. Nor have we ever seen them being used to "intimidate/overthrow governments"

 

Meredith (aided and abetted by Elthina) overthrows the viscount of Kirkwall because he wouldn't toe the Orlesian line, and the Chantry couldn't have that. And I'm really not sure where else Circle profits would go? Link please.

[Hellion Rex]

Helping the oppressed! How awful! How unfair!

 

Here's the thing: helping thugs kidnap, brutalize, intimidate and lobotomize people for the way they're born will never be as compelling as freeing them, and that's good. The purpose of the templars is to control mages for the Chantry, as weapons and as a way to make a pretty profit (and to intimidate/overthrow governments that don't align with their interests). It shouldn't be compelling if you aren't a zealot.

 

I mean, DAO doesn't give a particularly compelling case for siding with the werewolves either, does it?

Surely you must be joking, I'd say that siding with the Werewolves was a compelling argument. They weren't treated fairly by Zathrian, and they deserve better. 

 

And you can drop the romanticism. In a perfect world, yes, Templars wouldn't be necessary. But that is not the Thedas we are given. Mages have the capacity to do more harm than is nearly imaginable, should they lose control of their powers, turn to blood magic, or fall under the possession of a demon. That does not excuse the power imbalances ingrained by the old system, but systems like the Circle are still needed to guide, nurture, and regulate the use of magic within Southern Thedas.

[Hellion Rex]

Meredith (aided and abetted by Elthina) overthrows the viscount of Kirkwall because he wouldn't toe the Orlesian line, and the Chantry couldn't have that. And I'm really not sure where else Circle profits would go? Link please.

You do realize that Perrind Threnhold was extorting the Orlesians for money and was also blocking all sea traffic to EVERYONE in the Waking Sea, so of course the Divine had Elthina step in to try to defuse the situation. Then he tried to kick the Templars out and executed Meredith's predecessor, Guylian.

[MisterJB]

Meredith (aided and abetted by Elthina) overthrows the viscount of Kirkwall because he wouldn't toe the Orlesian line, and the Chantry couldn't have that.

The mages weren't used there, merely the Templars and we all know Kirkwall had extenuating circunstances.

Plus, the Viscount struck first. Sure, it was a political maneuver but he was as much a player as Orlais.

 

 

And I'm really not sure where else Circle profits would go? Link please.

Towards mantaining the Circles and making the mages wealthy. TWoT volume 2 states that the Circles can be fabulously wealthy, particularly the Lucrosian fraternity. There are even troupes of of artists that specialize in bringing plays to the Circles. It's on page 176.

 

As for DG's quote, can't find it at the moment.
 

[Sports72Xtrm]

Surely you must be joking, I'd say that siding with the Werewolves was a compelling argument. They weren't treated fairly by Zathrian, and they deserve better. 

 

And you can drop the romanticism. In a perfect world, yes, Templars wouldn't be necessary. But that is not the Thedas we are given. Mages have the capacity to do more harm than is nearly imaginable, should they lose control of their powers, turn to blood magic, or fall under the possession of a demon. That does not excuse the power imbalances ingrained by the old system, but systems like the Circle are still needed to guide, nurture, and regulate the use of magic within Southern Thedas.

And yet the Circle promotes mages to lose control of their power, turn to blood magic, fall under possession. It's like Varric said in Kirkwall, the tighter Meredith squeeze, the harder mages will fight. Even if Anders and Fiona die, some discontent mage emboldened by the defiance of those who fell in the past will continue their work. Justice as a spirit lives forever and will seek to create more Anders.

 

Even the Circle isn't completely effective. Ferelden was a humane Circle, Kirkwall was a harsh Circle, both fell to demons and blood magic. Meanwhile, mages like the Augurs are more proficient in containing the magical threats and even more powerful than Magisters who study magic in the Imperium. The Circle is an ineffective half measure and perpetuates cruelty and war. They train mages in "approved" curriculum when magic must be ever evolving and researching even those that are deemed dagerous by the Chantry to truly fight against demons. Those that don't limit themselves while spirits and demons are under no such restrictions..The free mages found a better way and study to their full potential. But the Templars don't want that because they want limits in magic which weakens mages in a fight against demons creating more abominations and bloodmages. A vicious circle.

[Lord of War]

Siding with them as in 'let's go kill all the Dalish.'

 

And it's true that mages do need a system to educate themselves, but the Chantry and it's army of lyrium-addled fanatics should not be involved, much less in charge. The stigma Chantry doctrine attaches to magic make it entirely unsuited to controlling it. Mages should develop their own way to deal with these problems (as they have in places like Rivain). 

[Jaison1986]

I for one never followed the mages plight because of opression (I can leave that outcry for the tumblerinas, they're good at it), but because I don't believe that unresonable religious fanatics should be given power of life and death over any group of people.

 

It's less about shouting Freedom! and more about taking down a dangerous organization.

[MisterJB]

Siding with them as in 'let's go kill all the Dalish.'

 

And it's true that mages do need a system to educate themselves, but the Chantry and it's army of lyrium-addled fanatics should not be involved, much less in charge. The stigma Chantry doctrine attaches to magic make it entirely unsuited to controlling it. Mages should develop their own way to deal with these problems (as they have in places like Rivain). 

 

You have a problem with the Chantry being "in charge" (it really isn't) but you're entirely ok with the mages being in charge.
 

[Lord of War]

You have a problem with the Chantry being "in charge" (it really isn't) but you're entirely ok with the mages being in charge.
 

 

How is the Chantry not in charge of the old Circles? They're prisons whose jailers are the Chantry's army.

 

And why shouldn't mages be allowed to have some self-determination? What gives the Chantry the right to lock them up forever for existing while telling them it's their own fault? That produces the self-hate and terror that leads to abominations.

[MisterJB]

How is the Chantry not in charge of the old Circles? They're prisons whose jailers are the Chantry's army.

Because neither the Chantry nor the Templars can command the mages to do anything. The mages rule themselves within the Circle, the Templars guard and advise with all major decision requiring the approval of the First Enchanter while the Chantry mediates between these two equal groups..

 

Sure, there were restrictions much like a law will place restriction of all citizens and yes, within certain Circles, one group will be more powerful than the other. But that is life, happens everywhere.

 

 

And why shouldn't mages be allowed to have some self-determination? What gives the Chantry the right to lock them up forever for existing while telling them it's their own fault? That produces the self-hate and terror that leads to abominations.

I could give you a lot of reasons while simultaneously proving the Circle is still the safer system but that is not what was being discussed.

The point is you approve of mages ruling over normal people but are against the opposite.

[Lord of War]

Because neither the Chantry nor the Templars can command the mages to do anything. The mages rule themselves within the Circle, the Templars guard and advise with all major decision requiring the approval of the First Enchanter while the Chantry mediates between these two equal groups..

 

Sure, there were restrictions much like a law will place restriction of all citizens and yes, within certain Circles, one group will be more powerful than the other. But that is life, happens everywhere.

 

You actually believe this, based on everything we see? lol

 

 

I could give you a lot of reasons while simultaneously proving the Circle is still the safer system but that is not what was being discussed.

The point is you approve of mages ruling over normal people but are against the opposite.

 

Don't think I said that? Preferably, mages would rule themselves, and would be allowed to hold the occasional position of power (see Redcliffe for why this would be a good thing). I don't disapprove of mages being ruled by mundanes, but being thrown in prisons for compulsory lifetime sentences and effectively being used as slave labor and soldiers by the Chantry. That shouldn't happen to anyone.

[DarkAmaranth1966]

The problem is we have not seen all of the circles, only Ferelden and Kirkwal and, both had problems going on when we were there. What of others, Vivienne tells us each is different, not all of them had problems prior to the rebellion, some mages WANT the circles back so, I assume they com from place where they were content and felt safe.

 

Mages do need training and supervision early on more than mundanes but, a mage who has proven themselves should not be kept captive and, I don't think all circles prevent them form going out on excursions, shopping, to help ant clinics, etc... Some even held positions in royal houses, like Vivienne did in Orlais.

 

Circles need to be more open and Templars need better policing but, mages do need a place to study and practice without endangering the general public until they prove themselves and can handle being a part of the general public.

 

Yes in the games we are give either or choices and cannot choose to modify both mages and Templars but, that would be the ideal.

[Sports72Xtrm]

Ferelden, Starkhaven, and Kirkwall were the worst of it. Nevarra has Mortallasi where they are pretty much revered. Rivain was as fast and loose of a Circle that had no problems until the templars made it a problem. and Orlais is where one's wealth and opulence can give you comfortable lifestyle. So the Circles with the most privilege and freedom are those content with the system and those that aren't luxurious palaces are mage prisons. The only time the Circles actually work is if the Circles are more a luxurious guided cage than an actual cage which it isn't for all Circles.

[Qun00]

There is always that really loud guy that draws all attention to himself and derails the thread.

I didn't say siding with the mages is wrong. As a matter of fact, this isn't a debate about who is right.

The point is that the writers could have done a better job with the templar side. If the player doesn't need to think in order to make a decision, that means the game failed at making it interesting.

I struggled a lot in order to make up my mind about sparing Loghain and the Architect. Why? Because there were very good reasons to go either way. All options are effectively shown as valid.

[MisterJB]

You actually believe this, based on everything we see? lol

Given the fact you were even unaware of where the Circle's profits were used (seriously, Orsino raising the prices in DA2 wasn't enough to clue you in), I don't believe you're in a position to question other's people understanding of the franchise.

 

 

 

Don't think I said that?

*points to your Tevinter avatar and your use of Rivain as a preferable system*

 

 

would be allowed to hold the occasional position of power (see Redcliffe for why this would be a good thing).

What?

 

 

and effectively being used as slave labor

 

Besides the fact we've already extablished that the mages don't work for anyone but themselves.

 

[Sports72Xtrm]

There is always that really loud guy that draws all attention to himself and derails the thread.

I didn't say siding with the mages is wrong. As a matter of fact, this isn't a debate about who is right.

The point is that the writers could have done a better job with the templar side. If the player doesn't need to think in order to make a decision, that means the game failed at making it interesting.

I struggled a lot in order to make up my mind about sparing Loghain and the Architect. Why? Because there were very good reasons to go either way. All options are effectively shown as valid.

They did appeal to you. They appealed to your fear and grim resolve and even threw in Ser Frat Boy saving cowering mages from mobs to make you feel better about it. You can believe that's what the Order stands for, even though one member doesn't represent the entire organization. Doesn't Solas say something about Organizations  eventually going  bad anyways? Somewhere down the line, whether mage or templar, as an organization, it would turn corrupt someday according to his hypothesis.

[PapaCharlie9]

While there are a few reasons to be pro Circle and respect the templars' real purpose, the games failed to provide one that is just as compelling as the noble cause of mage freedom.

Sera, of all people, stumbles into the truth of what should have been shown in the narrative, instead of us being told.

Dorian: The way you talk about magic--you’ve never been on good terms with a mage?

Sera: Sure. A couple. They were all right. Bit weird.

Sera: I knew a funny boy in Denerim. Started fires with his eyes. Templars nabbed him right quick, so he's better now, I guess?

Dorian: Better? Do you know what your southern Circles are like?

Sera: Meals and training? So he wouldn't starve or get stomped by a mob? I've seen both.

Dorian: (Sighs.) You're sadly right.

It's not like there aren't other sources to draw from. Consider every mutants-in-the-modern-world story ever written. People, especially kids, that suddenly develop special abilities are immediately seen as a threat by muggle neighbors and even family. They are persecuted, if not strung up or burned at the stake. Enter the institution for the protection of special people.

Bioware could have shown us a story of a young person developing magic powers and being persecuted and having their life threatened before a Templar comes to protect them and take them to the safety of a Circle.

[thats1evildude]

I was morally obligated to side with the mages in both DAO and DA2, since they were the innocent party. But that wasn't the case in DAI.

I supported the Templars in DAI because the mages were no longer victims of circumstances beyond their control. The rebel mages in the Hinterlands are just as nasty and abusive to the refugees as the rebel templars, and the mages in Redcliffe chose of their own volition to be slaves to Tevinter and by extension Corypheus. (Sure, they don't like the deal, but they aren't willing to do anything about it.) And if you do save them, they whine about how they're being treated and sit around on their asses.

With the exception of Samson, Lord Seeker Lucius and Denam, the Templars didn't choose to serve Corypheus; they were betrayed by their superiors and tricked into taking red lyrium. None of them signed up to be monsters. And they actively serve the Inquisition out in the field, helping to fight the Venatori and demons and even protect innocent mages.

[thesuperdarkone2]

I was morally obligated to side with the mages in both DAO and DA2, since they were the innocent party. But that wasn't the case in DAI.

I supported the Templars in DAI because the mages were no longer victims of circumstances beyond their control. The rebel mages in the Hinterlands are just as nasty and abusive to the refugees as the rebel templars. The mages in Redcliffe chose of their own volition to be slaves to Tevinter and by extension Corypheus. And if you do save them, they whine about how they're being treated and sit around on their asses.

Meanwhile, the Templars didn't choose to serve Corypheus; by and large, they are being tricked into taking red lyrium and becoming monsters. And they actively serve the Inquisition out on the field, helping to fight the Venatori and demons and even protect innocent mages.

How is it the mages fault when Fiona was the one who made the deal and the majority of mages are openly against the deal?