1158 réponses à ce sujet

[PapaCharlie9]

There really isn't one, and that's the way it should be. The Templar argument is in no way equal to the mages' unless you happen to be a Chantry zealot. The Chantry and it's Order of thugs has duped Thedas since their founding, perpetuating crimes and evils that massively outweigh anything even Corypheus does (in Inquisition, at least).

See my previous reply. And you can't argue that the acts of an individual can't repair the reputation of the instituion, because of the HoF.

[Lord of War]

I made the point earlier that showing Templars in a positive light wouldn't be that hard. Show an emergent mage in danger of being lynched by a muggle mob and a Templar comes to the rescue, and maybe they are both chased by a local noble that hunts mages for sport. This is not a new idea: the oppressed mutant youth being rescued by Professor Xavier's School For Gifted Youngsters.

 

This wouldn't change anything. The mob hates mages because of the Templars' bosses and beliefs. And what happens to that emergent mage once he arrives at a Circle? He could succeed, if he's lucky. Or he could be lobotomized and abused by Templars who have no oversight or limit to their "divine" authority. 

[straykat]

I made the point earlier that showing Templars in a positive light wouldn't be that hard. Show an emergent mage in danger of being lynched by a muggle mob and a Templar comes to the rescue, and maybe they are both chased by a local noble that hunts mages for sport. This is not a new idea: the oppressed mutant youth being rescued by Professor Xavier's School For Gifted Youngsters.

 

It's not entirely accurate though. Xavier was a mutant himself and seeking co-existence. He was still in the freedom camp. The real dichotomy of the X-Men was methods between him and Magneto. Xavier was based on. MLK Jr. and Magneto was Malcolm-X.

 

But they were both opposed to the "Stryker" types. And the Sentinels. People who wanted to control or lock up mutants. This is how people often see Templars.

[Hellion Rex]

There really isn't one, and that's the way it should be. The Templar argument is in no way equal to the mages' unless you happen to be a Chantry zealot. The Chantry and it's Order of thugs has duped Thedas since their founding, perpetuating crimes and evils that massively outweigh anything even Corypheus does (in Inquisition, at least).

BS. I am damn well no Chantry zealot, but that hardly lessens the appeal and sense of a Templar narrative to me. Wanting to safeguard against the dangers and abuses of magic is hardly a bad thing instead of wanting people who can set people aflame with their mind and possibly be possessed by a demon to run around unchecked without oversight. It's not an easy system, dear God knows it's not. But mages do need some oversight, particularly from people that can nullify their powers.

[Hellion Rex]

It's not entirely accurate though. Xavier was a mutant himself and seeking co-existence. He was still in the freedom camp. The real dichotomy of the X-Men was methods between him and Magneto. Xavier was based on. MLK Jr. and Magneto was Malcolm-X.

But they were both opposed to the "Stryker" types. And the Sentinels. People who wanted to control or lock up mutants. This is how people often see Templars.

I would suppose the Registration Act would be a better parallel?

[straykat]

I think it's that very oversight that exacerbates the problem of mages. It just makes them more stressed out and weird.

 

I also think a whole culture revolving around jailing just attracts bad elements. Not actual Chantry people. You get paid, fed, and lauded for hovering over people 24/7? Those people are crazy. I highly doubt most of them are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. It's prime territory for sadists.

[Lord of War]

BS. I am damn well no Chantry zealot, but that hardly lessens the appeal and sense of a Templar narrative to me. Wanting to safeguard against the dangers and abuses of magic is hardly a bad thing instead of wanting people who can set people aflame with their mind and possibly be possessed by a demon to run around unchecked without oversight. It's not an easy system, dear God knows it's not. But mages do need some oversight, particularly from people that can nullify their powers.

 

See, pro-Mage people aren't arguing that mages should just be set loose to wander to the world, but that the Circles and their Templars are an abusive failure, and need to be replaced with something sane and humane, something the mages themselves have control over. The Chantry monopoly on magic, the unlimited power it gives zealots over people they say are cursed by the Maker, it's all got to go. They have no right.

[PapaCharlie9]

This wouldn't change anything. The mob hates mages because of the Templars' bosses and beliefs. And what happens to that emergent mage once he arrives at a Circle? He could succeed, if he's lucky. Or he could be lobotomized and abused by Templars who have no oversight or limit to their "divine" authority.

I think the mob can come up with their own reasons, like an emergent mage burning down half a village by accident. But I grant you that "fundamentalist" Andrastians may be predisposed to see mages as something to be feared. Andraste herself doesn't say "fear mages," but that is neither here nor there.
 
So what? That wouldn't stop a good writer from depicting at least one Templar in a positive light. You know, like Cass versus the corrupted Seekers.
 

It's not entirely accurate though. Xavier was a mutant himself and seeking co-existence. He was still in the freedom camp. The real dichotomy of the X-Men was methods between him and Magneto. Xavier was based on. MLK Jr. and Magneto was Malcolm-X.
 
But they were both opposed to the "Stryker" types. And the Sentinels. People who wanted to control or lock up mutants. This is how people often see Templars.

All true, of course. I didn't mean for it to be a literal replacement. Just suggestive of the trope. Maybe S.H.I.E.L.D. and Inhumans is a better analogy.

[Illegitimus]

Refuse? It's not like the Venatori could force them to obey Corypheus. That was the whole point of using time travel to beat the Inquisition to Redcliffe, and then fooling a Fereldan arl into convincing them to sell out to Tevinter.

There's no indication that the mages were in immediate danger. I mean, they obviously felt secure enough at Redcliffe for their leader to come all the way to Val Royeaux to meet the Herald of Andraste.

So what was the impetus for selling their freedom to Tevinter? Because they couldn't win the war anymore? Tough s**t. If you're so eager to fight for freedom, at least have the strength of conviction to stick to your principles.

 

If people worked that way, nobody would ever surrender and every war would be fought to extermination.  

[raging_monkey]

No it's democractically watching over dangerous people. They signed the accord, agreed to said restrictions it's honestly only the past decades people thought of autonomy

[Lord of War]

So what? That wouldn't stop a good writer from depicting at least one Templar in positive light. You know, like Cass versus the corrupted Seekers.

 

A few good men don't change what is inherently a corrupt and brutal system. I do admire Templars like, say, Thrask and Emeric, but all the good even they try to do is undone by Order's nature. 

[straykat]

I think the whole thing is just some bad compromise with the original Inquisition and Chantry. They couldn't entirely get rid of those mage hunter elements... so they incorporated it.

 

It reminds me of a lot of crappy treaties, that end up biting people in the ass.

[straykat]

I feel like I'm being a bit heavy handed here...

 

 

One thing I'd like to see is mobile policing... yet free mages. Whether it's wandering Seekers or other do-gooders. Or just the Inquisition itself. Not only does this avoid the jailer aspect, but anyone who commits to a job like that would likely be more sincere in their beliefs. They'd have the whole "knights errant" thing going on.

 

That'd be my idea of a positive Templar type.

[PapaCharlie9]

A few good men don't change what is inherently a corrupt and brutal system.

So what do you think of the story of the HoF then? Ultimately futile?

I think we're talking at crossed purposes. Of course you are right, if you are talking about politics or morality in the large.

I'm talking about narrative at the personal level -- because the player relates to characters in the story at a personal level. Politics and morality are backdrop. I'm talking about how a writer can show that a coin has two sides and that it isn't all black-and-white, oppression is bad therefore all Templars are inherently evil and incapable of doing good.

Arguably, in DAI the writers do a crap job of showing the mage sides as well (both good and bad -- it's mostly through dialogue), but the writers are let off the hook by the points that @straykat and @Qun00 made -- we're prediposed to want to fight for freedom and rescue the oppressed. The writers need merely to hint at freedom being abridged and we're ready to rise to the defense of mages.

[Hellion Rex]

I think it's that very oversight that exacerbates the problem of mages. It just makes them more stressed out and weird.

I also think a whole culture revolving around jailing just attracts bad elements. Not actual Chantry people. You get paid, fed, and lauded for hovering over people 24/7? Those people are crazy. I highly doubt most of them are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. It's prime territory for sadists.

Well, what else do we have? Letting people go to live on their own recognizance? In a perfect world, I would love to do that. But We don't have that luxury.

[straykat]

Well, what else do we have? Letting people go to live on their own recognizance? In a perfect world, I would love to do that. But We don't have that luxury.

 

I'll take the leap of faith

[Ghost Gal]

I personally just wish the writers would commit to the mistake. I get that they wanted the mage/Templar conflict to be perfectly grey/gray, split down the center in terms of moral high ground from the start, but that's just not how it came across. I'm sorry that they regret that they made the mages come across as too sympathetic in DAO and halfway through DA2, but trying to artificially even the playing field by trying to make mages come across as bigger assholes in DA2 (so both sides were equally repulsive) and try to force another grey dilemma in DAI is, in my opinion, not the best way to go about it. It comes across as shallow and forced since moral grey choices are all the rage right now, and makes both choices seem underwhelming. If you accidentally made one seem more sympathetic, then stick to it and run with it; stop trying to backpedal.

[Lord of War]

So what do you think of the story of the HoF then? Ultimately futile?

I think we're talking at crossed purposes. Of course you are right, if you are talking about politics or morality in the large.

I'm talking about narrative at the personal level -- because the player relates to characters in the story at a personal level. Politics and morality are backdrop. I'm talking about how a writer can show that a coin has two sides and that it isn't all black-and-white, oppression is bad therefore all Templars are inherently evil and incapable of doing good.

Arguably, in DAI the writers do a crap job of showing the mage sides as well (both good and bad -- it's mostly through dialogue), but the writers are let off the hook by the points that @straykat and @Qun00 made -- we're prediposed to want to fight for freedom and rescue the oppressed. The writers need merely to hint at freedom being abridged and we're ready to rise to the defense of mages.

 

The HoF? Ultimately, yes, they really don't change perceptions too much. Many even ending up doubting that Fereldan had a real Blight.

 

But the whole problem with the mage/Templar debate is that I don't really believe in two equally opposed "morally grey" arguments. The Templars, as they are portrayed, are clearly in the wrong, no matter how good they try to be, and without massive reform on their part or retcons on the writers' (see Cullen for this), that can't change. As I see it, this isn't an argument that can be made "morally grey."

 

The Templars would need to be something else entirely for this to work.

[PapaCharlie9]

I personally just wish the writers would commit to the mistake. I get that they wanted the mage/Templar conflict to be perfectly grey/gray, split down the center in terms of moral high ground from the start, but that's just not how it came across. I'm sorry that they regret that they made the mages come across as too sympathetic in DAO and halfway through DA2, but trying to artificially even the playing field by trying to make mages come across as bigger assholes in DA2 (so both sides were equally repulsive) and try to force another grey dilemma in DAI is, in my opinion, not the best way to go about it. It comes across as shallow and forced since moral grey choices are all the rage right now, and makes both choices seem underwhelming. If you accidentally made one seem more sympathetic, then stick to it and run with it; stop trying to backpedal.

This is a really good point. I get a different impression about the intention, though.

Whether or not showing an institution in a positive light was a mistake, they purposely target the things we love to knock down in the next installment. You think Grey Wardens are so great, because of the HoF? We'll show you! We'll tear the GW to pieces right before your eyes.

I'm afraid they get a kick out of f---ing with our cherished beliefs. But why? To show how cynical they are? How truly unfair the game world really is? That nothing is perfect and everything good is corrupted eventually? I get my fill of that in the real world, thanks.

[straykat]

I got the feeling they were iffy about the Wardens from the start though. Even back in the novels, Duncan knew it wasn't going to be fun. My first wtf was when Jory got shanked. Then Avernus.

 

And the whole point of Loghain was that you were questioning the Warden ideals... and saw it as a punishment (instead of an "honor", like Alistair did). But I'm guessing not many people did that at first. Still though, the writers left it as an option.

[Lord of War]

I got the feeling they were iffy about the Wardens from the start though. Even back in the novels, Duncan knew it wasn't going to be fun. My first wtf was when Jory got shanked. Then Avernus.

 

Yeah, the Wardens have always been on the shady side bar Alistair's naivete and the HoF's exploits. Then again, the HoF is only a Warden in the loosest sense throughout Origins, so I really don't think they're the best example. The writers were going this way in DA2 too, though, especially in Legacy.

[straykat]

Yeah, the Wardens have always been on the shady side bar Alistair's naivete and the HoF's exploits. Then again, the HoF is only a Warden in the loosest sense throughout Origins, so I really don't think they're the best example. The writers were going this way in DA2 too, though, especially in Legacy.

 

Yeah, if it wasn't clear in DAO, DA2 brought it home. Maybe even before Legacy. Bethany was kind of heartbreaking, personally.

[Hellion Rex]

I'll take the leap of faith

While I respect and envy you your belief in these people (my people as well, since mages are always my class of choice) I am not willing to risk the greater numbers of non mages in Thedas over chance. Mages need an institution that nurtures their talent, instills discipline and restraint, as well as provides a level of oversight.

In the future, I would like to see mages work hand in hand with Templars and Seekers both to regulate and control magic in Southern Thedas.

[Hellion Rex]

This is a really good point. I get a different impression about the intention, though.

Whether or not showing an institution in a positive light was a mistake, they purposely target the things we love to knock down in the next installment. You think Grey Wardens are so great, because of the HoF? We'll show you! We'll tear the GW to pieces right before your eyes.

I'm afraid they get a kick out of f---ing with our cherished beliefs. But why? To show how cynical they are? How truly unfair the game world really is? That nothing is perfect and everything good is corrupted eventually? I get my fill of that in the real world, thanks.

To be fair, we got a very idealistic and unrealistic view of the Wardens in DAO, which was already begging to get knocked down.

Also, find it kinda ironic you're talking about their cynicism when you are openly displaying your own towards their intentions.

If anything, their narrative choices teach us that nothing is ever simple, nothing is ever so black and white, which is certainly a fair lesson to teach and echo through their writing

[Lord of War]

While I respect and envy you your belief in these people (my people as well, since mages are always my class of choice) I am not willing to risk the greater numbers of non mages in Thedas over chance. Mages need an institution that nurtures their talent, instills discipline and restraint, as well as provides a level of oversight.

 

The Circle as it is can has never been and will never be that institution. It is a corrupt, brutal failure that needs to be entirely replaced, just as the Templars need to be entirely dissolved.