Is there no way to hurt the Templars in DA:O?

[MonkeySage]

Beginning of the game as a mage, one is given every reason to hate the Templars who guard Circle Tower. Slavery is illegal in Ferelden, yet mages in Circle Tower are pretty much glorified slaves, and Circle Tower is a very fancy prison. I've not finished the game yet as a mage, as I've had other obligations and i'm generally slow to finish games anyway, lol. But I got to the point where you return to the tower to gain their support.

There's a way to destroy the circle, though it comes across as needlessly dickish, and it plays right into the Templars' favor. Also, I like Wynne. Of all the Circle Mages, she comes across as being a pretty swell person.

And doing so doesn't address the biggest problem with the Tower- the Templars.

[tonberrian]

Yeah the Mage-Templar conflict is a big deal in Thedas and you can't really deal with it in origins - you only have the one tower, and your choice is Mages or Templars helping you in the final battle (which is dumb, because there's no good reason why you can't have the Templars too if you get the mages).

In 2 the conflict explodes (I am told quite literally, but I haven't played it) and in Inquisition you get to choose a side to join you in the Mage-Templar war. But you don't really solve anything.

[Kish]

You're asking a question about the central conflict of the entire series.
You can, if you survive the endgame as a mage Warden, ask the ruler of Ferelden to free the mage circle there. This will have lasting effects, which are good in any event but better if the ruler in question is Alistair.
In Dragon Age 2, a mage who is one of your companions blows up a chantry and starts an all-out war between mages and templars. You can either support him or oppose him in his insistence that mages should be free, but you cannot ultimately stop him--Dragon Age 2 handwaves some justifications otherwise, but ultimately, the character you're playing is a minor character in that companion's story.
Your character in Dragon Age 3 can choose to recruit the rebelling mages as allies, recruit the attempting-to-rechain-them templars as allies, or force a less friendly relationship in which either of them works for you. Either way, the group you do not recruit remains your enemies throughout the game, and the vast majority of them are wiped out. No matter what you do, in an example of Bioware forcing the outcome they want for their ongoing plot, there will ultimately be mage circles controlled by the Divine, self-governing mage colleges, and templars who oversee the circles and answer to the Divine. There are ways to maximize mage freedom and minimize templar presence, and they're pretty obvious as you play the game.

[Crow]

Honestly, with as dangerous as one bad mage can be and what they can unleash when things go bad; I'd say the Templars as an organization (individuals can be a different story) for the most part (in that world and that part of their timeline) show amazing restraint.

I mean, just imagine how it would go down in the real world.

[Giggling Ghast]

There is actual slavery in Thedas, and the version practiced in the Circle of Magi sure as hell ain’t it. It’s more akin to a quarantine, where the diseased (ie. mages) are kept separate from the rest of the population to prevent their disease (ie. magic) from harming the general public, as well as to keep the public from harming them.

Now, despite this danger, you may still insist that Templars are the problem, but the truth is that Templars are as much “slaves” as the mages. Becoming a Templar means signing up for a life of service that includes becoming addicted to a substance which eventually robs you of your own mind. Have you seen the late stages of lyrium addiction? It ain’t pretty.

And in truth, the Templars are only one facet of the system. There’s the Seekers, the group tasked with overseeing the Templars, and there’s the Chantry, who holds the lyrium leash of the Templars.

“Things would be so much better without the Chantry, then!” Would it? Because before the Chantry, Thedas was dominated by the Tevinter Imperium, a brutal mage-led empire that did not rule the non-Tevinter citizenry kindly. So it was great for the mages in control and not so much everyone else.

And while the Tevinter Imperium is unlikely to rise to power again, now Thedas has the threat of the qunari. If you think mages would do better under the Qun, you need to play Dragon Age 2 and DAI.

[Giggling Ghast]

You want to know the real irony in calling mages “slaves,” though? Major spoilers for Dragon Age: Inquisition below.

In DA: Inquisition, the rebel mages literally sell themselves into slavery to a Tevinter magister! :smallbiggrin:

[Dienekes]

Ahh the Templar vs Mage debacle. Along with the Qunari the most interesting thing ever made for the Dragon Age setting.

Unfortunately, there’s no way to actually destroy the Templar or go on a knight killing spree in this game. However the conflict comes to a head in the next few games if you decide to continue.

Personal thoughts on the conflict spoilered. I try to be kind of vague if OP wants to read them. But you know better safe than sorry.


The whole conflict comes across as a meditation on the virtues of freedom for all or safety for the majority. In DA:O the conflict actually seems pretty black and white. The Mages are in a gilded prison and in many cases the times that Mages act out in violence it is caused either directly or indirectly by the Templar threat. Mages are powerful, yes. One child could destroy an entire city because he’s an idiot and made a deal with a demon. But the child only had an idiot as a teacher because his mother feared the Templar. This makes the Templar the villains in pretty much every situation except the one cool old blind guy. And a few who were trying to protect people from the darkspawn horde.

To make the conflict more nuanced later games decided, instead of lightening the Templar to just make the Mages all behave like psychopaths and idiots. This is at its worst in the second game where every Mage you meet that isn’t your sibling or you is a liability and danger to themselves and others. This includes your companions. Unfortunately this doesn’t really seem to work, as well as hoped because well honestly that’s a pretty bad way of making moral dilemmas, just making everyone idiots. But more importantly it doesn’t really change the situation that we can believe that the Templar system is the problem and all these idiotic Mages are just a reflection of that broken system. There is a tiny glimmer of templars fixing the problems with their system with one cool Templar. Only, he gets killed. By a Mage. That he saved. You get why I think so poorly of these people?

This finally gets shaken up in the third game. Where we learn that every culture in this setting is divided between those controlled by power hungry Magocracies that either secretly or blatantly murder civilians for magic power and those that have Mages under the thumb of Templar or something even worse. Which gives the hint that the actual power structure of magic and blood magic can be considered in itself a systemic problem.

I personally ended up siding with Mages every single time. But they do not make it easy. Because god damn are they all objectively stupid, self-defeating, incompetents. With the only exceptions being the villains of the story. Who are still usually stupid and self defeating but have at least spikes of effective competence.

[Anteros]

I sided with the Mages for the first two games. In the first game they are clearly the victims of an overbearing system. While individual mages can be dangerous and need oversight,
the system is clearly broken and needs reform.

In the second game the mages are much more out of control and dangerous. They clearly need oversight and control. The problem is that the Templars in that game come off as insane zealots. By the time the Chantry is destroyed I was 50/50 on which side to support, but ultimately decided that I couldn't condemn an entire group of people based on the actions of a few, even if those few were incredibly dangerous. Plus, that game heavily encourages you to play as a mage yourself, so it makes sense to be on that side of the conflict.

In the third game the Templar leadership is much more reasonable, and you're allowed to help push for reforms. On top of this the mage faction is completely idiotic beyond all help. I was planning on still siding with the mages given my history in the last two games, but upon learning that they literally sold themselves into slavery to the mustache twirling villains of the setting I just couldn't condone their idiocy anymore. This is the third game in a row where a group of mages almost destroyed an entire country due to their personal stupidity. If these types of world ending screw ups are happening this often,
then maybe the Templars have a point about keeping them on a tight leash. I'm tired of saving these idiots from themselves, so siding with the Templars it is.

[Keltest]

The thing about the Templars is that a lot of the time you only see them at their worst. If youre a mage, theres an inherent bias present, and if you aren't, then you only really encounter them when theres a problem that they cant easily solve. If you side with them in Inquisition though, you get to see a lot of the rank and file doing their jobs, doing it well, and you understand why theyre perceived as needed. The Templars don't just protect people from mages, they protect the mages too. Most of them are not like the Templars in Kirkwall. They legitimately want to protect their charges, and just don't have a lot of good ways to do that.

[Anteros]

The thing about the Templars is that a lot of the time you only see them at their worst.

Probably true of the Mages too. Or almost any group of people in a fantasy game really.

[Keltest]

Probably true of the Mages too. Or almost any group of people in a fantasy game really.
To a point maybe, but the fact that you can play as a mage and, to an extent, have to worry about the Templars and see them in action gives you a good look at their side. Maybe not the day to day stuff, but you see some of the pressures theyre under and the things they have to do.

[Lector87]

There is actual slavery in Thedas, and the version practiced in the Circle of Magi sure as hell ain’t it. It’s more akin to a quarantine, where the diseased (ie. mages) are kept separate from the rest of the population to prevent their disease (ie. magic) from harming the general public, as well as to keep the public from harming them.

I'd never thought about it that way, but that's the perfect analogy.

I've always had a lot of sympathy for the Chantry and the Templars. In a setting where magic can literally open up the world to demonic invasion, keeping mages on a tight leash might not look nice, but is a heck of a lot better than the alternative. Of course there are excesses and abuses, because there are excesses and abuses in any system. But suggesting that mages should have no oversight whatever is just plain crazy. The Templars might need reform, but they're performing a fundamentally necessary societal function.

I know the OP wasn't asking for a wave of support for the Templars, and opening up that particular can of worms isn't really the point of the thread, but I just wanted to shove my oar in.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[MonkeySage]

I kinda got my hopes up with the one Templar who had a crush on my character at the beginning... Then he goes psycho with the whole "kill all mages" thing when you return to Circle Tower.

There's Alistair, an adorable puppy of a character, but since he didn't complete his Templar training, I don't count him as one.

I can understand where the Templars are coming from, but it still seems a bit extreme to me. The child in Redcliffe certainly could have had a better apostate mentor. Morrigan's kind of a bad example, but I think that sort of comes down to a rough upbringing, not magic. With a better up bringing, I think she'd be a swell mentor.

I'm planning to get the second game sometime later this year

[Razade]

Slavery is illegal in Ferelden,


There is actual slavery in Thedas

Yeah. Just not in Fereldan. Which is what the OP said.

[Triaxx]

Honestly, it never made any sense to me. By all rights the Templar should be spending their time hunting down and wiping out every mage they can lay hands on. Between seeming to be wholly convinced they're all insane and evil, and both blaming them for spirits from the Fade as well as for unleashing the Darkspawn, as well as the evil Empire being entirely Mage run, there's every case for them to be doing that. Any meeting of more than two mages should see entire squads of Templar breaking down doors and gutting every one of them.

Suffice to say, I'm surprised they didn't go further.

[Keltest]

Honestly, it never made any sense to me. By all rights the Templar should be spending their time hunting down and wiping out every mage they can lay hands on. Between seeming to be wholly convinced they're all insane and evil, and both blaming them for spirits from the Fade as well as for unleashing the Darkspawn, as well as the evil Empire being entirely Mage run, there's every case for them to be doing that. Any meeting of more than two mages should see entire squads of Templar breaking down doors and gutting every one of them.

Suffice to say, I'm surprised they didn't go further.

For some inexplicable reason, the people in charge of the Templars have historically frowned upon the mass murder of people who's only crime was to have been born.

Having said that, them deciding to do just that is what kicks off the plot to Dragon Age Inquisition. Shockingly, nobody really supports them in that goal.

[Kish]

the version practiced in the Circle of Magi sure as hell ain’t it.
It's a version of slavery, but it's not slavery...that contained some amusing unintentional honesty.

If "there's something worse" proves something not bad, I take it you'd be okay with dying to stabbing then? After all, it's not burning or death by torture. There is actual death in the world, and the version that involves a single pointy object sure as hell ain't it!

[Giggling Ghast]

Bad choice of words on my part. I should have just said, "what's practiced in the Circle of Magi ain't slavery." Actual slavery is different.

The rebel mages learn the distinction when they swear fealty to the Elder One in DAI.

[Triaxx]

Yeah, I suppose it is more humane to watch them hawkishly for the slightest slip for an excuse to render them into mindless, obedient slaves.

[Anteros]

Yeah, I suppose it is more humane to watch them hawkishly for the slightest slip for an excuse to render them into mindless, obedient slaves.

Versus the alternative where they end up getting hundreds if not thousands of people around them horribly dismembered by demons on a regular basis?

[Triaxx]

No, versus butchering every one they put hands on. Or simply converting them immediately on discovery. They keep showing there's absolutely no reason to allow mages to continue to exist, and yet they do. It's totally nonsensical.

Ah well, just one of the many reasons I gave up on the series.

[Lector87]

Out of genuine curiosity, is anybody here actually satisfied - deep down, "I done good" satisfied - by the choices and resolutions offered you in either Dragon Age or Mass Effect?

It feels like these days Bioware's approach to story-telling is:

A. Present a horrible situation.
B. Present the player with equally horrible options.
C. Make the player feel bad about their decisions.

Accompanied by NPCs who are only too happy to tell you how terrible you are at decision-making.

Maybe I'm just being a grump, but replaying BG2 has revived memories of a time when RPGs didn't make a player's misery Priority No. 1.

[GloatingSwine]

When it comes to mages in Dragon Age, the satisfying option is to declare them too stupid to live* and kill all of them.

Because the whole templar/mage quandary is somewhat undermined by the sheer number of times the problem of the day is "rogue mage unleashes abominations and demons".

Mages clearly can't be trusted not to turn to deals with demons at the slightest opportunity.



* Even when I was a blood mage who helped Jowan escape in the origin the fact that he ****ed up the same again and I had to clean up his mess again meant I had him executed.. Then again nobody survived that run except Morrigan, Sten, and my dog...

[Dienekes]

Out of genuine curiosity, is anybody here actually satisfied - deep down, "I done good" satisfied - by the choices and resolutions offered you in either Dragon Age or Mass Effect?

It feels like these days Bioware's approach to story-telling is:

A. Present a horrible situation.
B. Present the player with equally horrible options.
C. Make the player feel bad about their decisions.

Accompanied by NPCs who are only too happy to tell you how terrible you are at decision-making.

Maybe I'm just being a grump, but replaying BG2 has revived memories of a time when RPGs didn't make a player's misery Priority No. 1.

Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect 1 and 2? Yes.

Dragon Age 2? No, definitely not.

Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age Inquisitions? Some yes, some no.

I do think a part of it, is that you kind of need to remember who's making the games, and the rules of storytelling.

The best example is Morrigan. Spoilers for OP.

Let's be clear. Morrigan is a horrible person. Almost everything she says to you is some form of manipulation or social darwinist bull crap. Social darwinist bull crap that she doesn't even live up to by the way, if you actually do her companion quests.

She is the most selfish companion you have. She is the worst.

She's also pretty, and has a sad backstory, and is romanceable. So, you just know that siding with her and being supportive will make the best end result to the game.

And voila, siding with her gives the best end result of the game. And her appearances in later games dramatically tones down her negative qualities.


And a lot of their games are like that, I've found. If you want the best outcome that makes you feel good, you can't really play logically. You have to play poetically.

But then, I've always also enjoyed being put into the situation where you make hard choices and have to live with them. I'm ok if my decisions left some people angry, so long as it also has some people thank me. So long as that makes sense to do so. I kind of think the make everyone happy forever runs usually seem pretty hollow.

[Keltest]

When it comes to mages in Dragon Age, the satisfying option is to declare them too stupid to live* and kill all of them.

Because the whole templar/mage quandary is somewhat undermined by the sheer number of times the problem of the day is "rogue mage unleashes abominations and demons".

Mages clearly can't be trusted not to turn to deals with demons at the slightest opportunity.



* Even when I was a blood mage who helped Jowan escape in the origin the fact that he ****ed up the same again and I had to clean up his mess again meant I had him executed.. Then again nobody survived that run except Morrigan, Sten, and my dog...
In spite of appearances, that wasn't actually Jowan's fault (except for the poison, that was him). Connor was communicating with a demon in his dreams and inadvertently let it possess him. The poisoning perhaps made it worse, but the demon would have found a way in regardless, and perhaps one that didn't allow Connor to be saved.

[GloatingSwine]

In spite of appearances, that wasn't actually Jowan's fault (except for the poison, that was him). Connor was communicating with a demon in his dreams and inadvertently let it possess him. The poisoning perhaps made it worse, but the demon would have found a way in regardless, and perhaps one that didn't allow Connor to be saved.

Yeah, but "demons whispering to you in your dreams" is what circle training is supposed to help you resist.

The fact that Jowan was 1. A blood mage and therefore a tad too familiar with demons, and 2. A rubbish wizard means that it is very likely his incompetent instruction that doomed Connor.

[Maryring]

In Dragon Age: Inquisition, Cassandra reveals that the Tranquility rite is used in a process to make someone immune to possession. In other words, it is possible to render Mages less of a risk. They can still decide to throw fireballs into crowded locations, but it won't be because they're possessed by a demon. This is exposited more upon in one of the books, where the cure for Tranquility is revealed.

The Mage/Templar conflict is artificially induced to put two sets of people against one another, creating tension let those in power remain in power and the reasonable thing to do is to get rid of a corrupt system that keeps Templars in line with training meant to dehumanise Mages and get them addicted to a chemical substance, while using them to cultivate a culture of fear and loathing for a minority population, turning the majority against them while leaving their only recourse to be either a horribly abusive system, living in fear and paranoia while trying to suppress your power, or expulsion from all that is society.

Frankly. It's been quite effective.


In defense of Anders. At the end his actions are implied to be the result of a spirit possession. I can understand that lack of hope breeds desperation. He's still an idiot, just not as big an idiot as everyone else.

Merrill on the other hand is always an idiot.

The game really dropped the ball on Bethany and Carver. Killing one of them at the start weakened their stories and leaves a big whooping "what could have been" for the many possible explorations of the mage/templar conflicts while drawing Hawke in two different directions. Instead they might as well not exist for all the good their presence have on the story.

The best part about siding with the mages at the end is that you get to kill Fenris. Worst. Companion. Ever!

[Anteros]

In Dragon Age: Inquisition, Cassandra reveals that the Tranquility rite is used in a process to make someone immune to possession. In other words, it is possible to render Mages less of a risk. They can still decide to throw fireballs into crowded locations, but it won't be because they're possessed by a demon. This is exposited more upon in one of the books, where the cure for Tranquility is revealed.

The Mage/Templar conflict is artificially induced to put two sets of people against one another, creating tension let those in power remain in power and the reasonable thing to do is to get rid of a corrupt system that keeps Templars in line with training meant to dehumanise Mages and get them addicted to a chemical substance, while using them to cultivate a culture of fear and loathing for a minority population, turning the majority against them while leaving their only recourse to be either a horribly abusive system, living in fear and paranoia while trying to suppress your power, or expulsion from all that is society.

Frankly. It's been quite effective.


In defense of Anders. At the end his actions are implied to be the result of a spirit possession. I can understand that lack of hope breeds desperation. He's still an idiot, just not as big an idiot as everyone else.

Merrill on the other hand is always an idiot.

The game really dropped the ball on Bethany and Carver. Killing one of them at the start weakened their stories and leaves a big whooping "what could have been" for the many possible explorations of the mage/templar conflicts while drawing Hawke in two different directions. Instead they might as well not exist for all the good their presence have on the story.

The best part about siding with the mages at the end is that you get to kill Fenris. Worst. Companion. Ever!

No, Anders took that spirit and basically indoctrinated it into his crazy worldview.
The spirit might be responsible for forcing Anders hand at the very end if you try to talk him down, but Anders is the reason the spirit is that way in the first place. He does not deserve to have his actions excused in the least.

I didn't think Fenris was that bad. He was better than generic pirate lady. Really all the companion characters in DA2 were pretty generic and boring except Varric.

[Keltest]

In Dragon Age: Inquisition, Cassandra reveals that the Tranquility rite is used in a process to make someone immune to possession. In other words, it is possible to render Mages less of a risk. They can still decide to throw fireballs into crowded locations, but it won't be because they're possessed by a demon. This is exposited more upon in one of the books, where the cure for Tranquility is revealed.

The Mage/Templar conflict is artificially induced to put two sets of people against one another, creating tension let those in power remain in power and the reasonable thing to do is to get rid of a corrupt system that keeps Templars in line with training meant to dehumanise Mages and get them addicted to a chemical substance, while using them to cultivate a culture of fear and loathing for a minority population, turning the majority against them while leaving their only recourse to be either a horribly abusive system, living in fear and paranoia while trying to suppress your power, or expulsion from all that is society.

Frankly. It's been quite effective.


In defense of Anders. At the end his actions are implied to be the result of a spirit possession. I can understand that lack of hope breeds desperation. He's still an idiot, just not as big an idiot as everyone else.

Merrill on the other hand is always an idiot.

The game really dropped the ball on Bethany and Carver. Killing one of them at the start weakened their stories and leaves a big whooping "what could have been" for the many possible explorations of the mage/templar conflicts while drawing Hawke in two different directions. Instead they might as well not exist for all the good their presence have on the story.

The best part about siding with the mages at the end is that you get to kill Fenris. Worst. Companion. Ever!

Well, the rite of tranquility doesn't totally protect mages from possession, because being possessed is what breaks them out of tranquility. Its made unclear what exactly is happening with the rite, and using it also leaves mages volatile and emotional. Its clearly not just a case of "we can protect mages and choose not to."

[Dienekes]

In Dragon Age: Inquisition, Cassandra reveals that the Tranquility rite is used in a process to make someone immune to possession. In other words, it is possible to render Mages less of a risk. They can still decide to throw fireballs into crowded locations, but it won't be because they're possessed by a demon. This is exposited more upon in one of the books, where the cure for Tranquility is revealed.

The Mage/Templar conflict is artificially induced to put two sets of people against one another, creating tension let those in power remain in power and the reasonable thing to do is to get rid of a corrupt system that keeps Templars in line with training meant to dehumanise Mages and get them addicted to a chemical substance, while using them to cultivate a culture of fear and loathing for a minority population, turning the majority against them while leaving their only recourse to be either a horribly abusive system, living in fear and paranoia while trying to suppress your power, or expulsion from all that is society.

Frankly. It's been quite effective.


In defense of Anders. At the end his actions are implied to be the result of a spirit possession. I can understand that lack of hope breeds desperation. He's still an idiot, just not as big an idiot as everyone else.

Merrill on the other hand is always an idiot.

The game really dropped the ball on Bethany and Carver. Killing one of them at the start weakened their stories and leaves a big whooping "what could have been" for the many possible explorations of the mage/templar conflicts while drawing Hawke in two different directions. Instead they might as well not exist for all the good their presence have on the story.

The best part about siding with the mages at the end is that you get to kill Fenris. Worst. Companion. Ever!


No, Anders took that spirit and basically indoctrinated it into his crazy worldview.
The spirit might be responsible for forcing Anders hand at the very end if you try to talk him down, but Anders is the reason the spirit is that way in the first place. He does not deserve to have his actions excused in the least.

I didn't think Fenris was that bad. He was better than generic pirate lady. Really all the companion characters in DA2 were pretty generic and boring except Varric.

DA2 stuff

How much control Anders was in with the bombing depends entirely on the player's actions throughout the game. The more you try to tone down his revolutionary ideology the further you push Justice. Which causes him to turn into the demon Vengeance and bombs the Chantry on his own. If you've been aiding Anders and agreeing with him, it's pretty blatantly stated that Anders and Justice cooked up the bombing on their own. So your view on how responsible Anders really is depends on your playthrough. Since I agreed that the Mages were being mistreated by the Templar. And, how could you not? Meredith seemed pants on head crazy by mid-game and we caught at least one Templar using Tranquil as his personal rape slaves. I think very lowly of Anders.

As to DA2 companions completely. There are only 2 I thought I could trust to be rational, or at least, not make my life actually harder: Varric and Aveline. And after playing DAI, Aveline just seems like a less fleshed out Cassandra. Amusing mission with her boyfriend though.

Fenris is an interesting case, since his purpose is to point out Ander's basic hypocracy. Ander's calls mages slaves. Fenris is right there to point out, that they're technically not. Slaves have it far worse. Ander's says that everyone should be free, but actually tells Fenris he wishes the man was still enslaved. Agrees that he'd like to live in Tevinter, and refuses to believe Fenris' points about the ubiquity of blood magic, because despite not knowing a damn thing about the country, it goes against his personal beliefs on the inherent value of mages.

Fenris also makes the actual accurate point. "Oh you're an abomination. You're a danger to yourself and others." And, then the endgame happens demonstrating that yes, abominations are bad. Actually making Anders' actions further proof against the position he was championing. He's exactly why mages are feared in the first place, both emphasizing his destructive power and the danger of dealing with spirits.

Siding with one over the other seems kind of missing the point. They both exist to point out the glaring and obvious flaws in the other's ideology. You know, in case anyone could somehow miss them.

[Anteros]

DA2 stuff

How much control Anders was in with the bombing depends entirely on the player's actions throughout the game. The more you try to tone down his revolutionary ideology the further you push Justice. Which causes him to turn into the demon Vengeance and bombs the Chantry on his own. If you've been aiding Anders and agreeing with him, it's pretty blatantly stated that Anders and Justice cooked up the bombing on their own. So your view on how responsible Anders really is depends on your playthrough. Since I agreed that the Mages were being mistreated by the Templar. And, how could you not? Meredith seemed pants on head crazy by mid-game and we caught at least one Templar using Tranquil as his personal rape slaves. I think very lowly of Anders.

As to DA2 companions completely. There are only 2 I thought I could trust to be rational, or at least, not make my life actually harder: Varric and Aveline. And after playing DAI, Aveline just seems like a less fleshed out Cassandra. Amusing mission with her boyfriend though.

Fenris is an interesting case, since his purpose is to point out Ander's basic hypocracy. Ander's calls mages slaves. Fenris is right there to point out, that they're technically not. Slaves have it far worse. Ander's says that everyone should be free, but actually tells Fenris he wishes the man was still enslaved. Agrees that he'd like to live in Tevinter, and refuses to believe Fenris' points about the ubiquity of blood magic.

Fenris also makes the actual accurate point. "Oh you're an abomination. You're a danger to yourself and others." And, then the endgame happens demonstrating that yes, abominations are bad.

Siding with one over the other seems kind of missing the point. They both exist to point out the glaring and obvious flaws in the other's ideology. You know, in case anyone could somehow miss them.


Eh, I stamped down on Anders' idiotic philosophies at every opportunity and he still willfully chose to blow up the Chantry. I'm pretty sure it basically just checks if you're friends or rivals. If you're friends he takes responsibility, but if you're rivals he blames it on the spirit.

I would prefer Fenris to Anders because you can actually get him to rethink his beliefs when confronted with evidence he might be wrong. Anders just sticks his fingers in his ears and ignores anything that doesn't agree with his delusion.

[Dienekes]

Eh, I stamped down on Anders' idiotic philosophies at every opportunity and he still willfully chose to blow up the Chantry. I'm pretty sure it basically just checks if you're friends or rivals. If you're friends he takes responsibility, but if you're rivals he blames it on the spirit.

I would prefer Fenris to Anders because you can actually get him to rethink his beliefs when confronted with evidence he might be wrong. Anders just sticks his fingers in his ears and ignores anything that doesn't agree with his delusion.


You are correct, I just legitimately did not know there was a way to stomp down on Anders' philosophy without making him a Rival.

[Forum Explorer]

Out of genuine curiosity, is anybody here actually satisfied - deep down, "I done good" satisfied - by the choices and resolutions offered you in either Dragon Age or Mass Effect?

It feels like these days Bioware's approach to story-telling is:

A. Present a horrible situation.
B. Present the player with equally horrible options.
C. Make the player feel bad about their decisions.

Accompanied by NPCs who are only too happy to tell you how terrible you are at decision-making.

Maybe I'm just being a grump, but replaying BG2 has revived memories of a time when RPGs didn't make a player's misery Priority No. 1.

Yes for nearly all of Mass Effect. Including the ending. My only problem with it was Joker's scene in the final cinematic because it literally made zero sense.

[Giggling Ghast]

Out of genuine curiosity, is anybody here actually satisfied - deep down, "I done good" satisfied - by the choices and resolutions offered you in either Dragon Age or Mass Effect?

It feels like these days Bioware's approach to story-telling is:

A. Present a horrible situation.
B. Present the player with equally horrible options.
C. Make the player feel bad about their decisions.

Accompanied by NPCs who are only too happy to tell you how terrible you are at decision-making.

Maybe I'm just being a grump, but replaying BG2 has revived memories of a time when RPGs didn't make a player's misery Priority No. 1.I'm pretty satisfied thus far. But I'm also only playing Dragon Age. When I think about playing ME, my face gets tired. :smalltongue:

[Kish]

And yes for Dragon Age. The number of people in this thread who seem to be fighting against the game bemuse me--nothing more.

(The thing where Mass Effect 3 disregards any other motivations you might have had and tells you you were totes suckered by Tim in ME2 is annoying, but Gaider has always done that, including when he unveiled "I know you never had the slightest glimmer of this, but MELISSAN IS A BAD GUY!!!111" in BG2.)

[Maryring]

Well, the rite of tranquility doesn't totally protect mages from possession, because being possessed is what breaks them out of tranquility. Its made unclear what exactly is happening with the rite, and using it also leaves mages volatile and emotional. Its clearly not just a case of "we can protect mages and choose not to."

Err what? No. When a spirit touches someone who has been made Tranquil, their capacity for emotional response is restored to them. Cassandra explicitly states that she was made Tranquil, but restored through the touch of a spirit as part of the vigil. The emotional instability is called out as potentially a result of the prolonged exposure to Tranquility, but either way she admits that what happened at the end of that vigil was that she was made Tranquil. To quote the game.

Solas: It is difficult to say. In your Vigil, you were Tranquil for but a moment. They have suffered much longer.

That's from the conversation where they discuss the emotional damage that resulted from the one single individual whom this happened to.

[Keltest]

Err what? No. When a spirit touches someone who has been made Tranquil, their capacity for emotional response is restored to them. Cassandra explicitly states that she was made Tranquil, but restored through the touch of a spirit as part of the vigil. The emotional instability is called out as potentially a result of the prolonged exposure to Tranquility, but either way she admits that what happened at the end of that vigil was that she was made Tranquil. To quote the game.

Solas: It is difficult to say. In your Vigil, you were Tranquil for but a moment. They have suffered much longer.

That's from the conversation where they discuss the emotional damage that resulted from the one single individual whom this happened to.

Yes, that's the point. They don't know whats going on to get that end result. Cassandra isn't a mage, so it isn't just a matter of isolating time as the only variable. The only thing they know for certain is that friendly spirits can break tranquility.

[ArlEammon]

Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect 1 and 2? Yes.

Dragon Age 2? No, definitely not.

Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age Inquisitions? Some yes, some no.

I do think a part of it, is that you kind of need to remember who's making the games, and the rules of storytelling.

The best example is Morrigan. Spoilers for OP.

Let's be clear. Morrigan is a horrible person. Almost everything she says to you is some form of manipulation or social darwinist bull crap. Social darwinist bull crap that she doesn't even live up to by the way, if you actually do her companion quests.

She is the most selfish companion you have. She is the worst.

She's also pretty, and has a sad backstory, and is romanceable. So, you just know that siding with her and being supportive will make the best end result to the game.

And voila, siding with her gives the best end result of the game. And her appearances in later games dramatically tones down her negative qualities.


And a lot of their games are like that, I've found. If you want the best outcome that makes you feel good, you can't really play logically. You have to play poetically.

But then, I've always also enjoyed being put into the situation where you make hard choices and have to live with them. I'm ok if my decisions left some people angry, so long as it also has some people thank me. So long as that makes sense to do so. I kind of think the make everyone happy forever runs usually seem pretty hollow.

I agree, but I think that by the third game she's not that bad. I think there's some character growth going on.

[Cikomyr]

Out of genuine curiosity, is anybody here actually satisfied - deep down, "I done good" satisfied - by the choices and resolutions offered you in either Dragon Age or Mass Effect?

It feels like these days Bioware's approach to story-telling is:

A. Present a horrible situation.
B. Present the player with equally horrible options.
C. Make the player feel bad about their decisions.

Accompanied by NPCs who are only too happy to tell you how terrible you are at decision-making.

Maybe I'm just being a grump, but replaying BG2 has revived memories of a time when RPGs didn't make a player's misery Priority No. 1.

I keep trying to be good, but the Turian councilmember insists I screwed up :(

[Lector87]

I keep trying to be good, but the Turian councilmember insists I screwed up :(

Ah, yes, "Reapers".

[Douglas]

(The thing where Mass Effect 3 disregards any other motivations you might have had and tells you you were totes suckered by Tim in ME2 is annoying
I don't recall ME3 doing that. There's some mistrust for you because you were working with him, but that's because of publicly known outward appearances, not Shepard's internal motivations.

[Cikomyr]

I think a lot of people who become abominations in the first game do so because they feel pushed to extreme measures by the constant threat that the Templar represent. Both Jowan and Uldred are corrupted because they seek emancipation from the Templar's Sword of Damocles.

And yet, Ander really highlights the risks of possession, even by benevolent spirits. Mages should just never allow themselves to be possessed, under any circumstances. Yes, even Wynne. Do we learn what she eventually became?

Mages are dangerous. But the Templar solution is, in opinion, merely putting pressure on the whole solution instead of mitigating the issue. More individuals are pushed to turning Blood Mage or Abomination than might be prevented.

Edit: i am not that verse in the Mage/Templar controversy. I always been waaay more interested in Orzammar politics. As an Aeducan Prince, i knew picking Bhelen and having him acknowledge my son was the best choice. He had my back no matter what, because i brought him power and prestige while not being any threats to his new kingship.

Have we even found out what happened to the other surviving Dwarven city? Kal-Sharok?

[Keltest]

I think a lot of people who become abominations in the first game do so because they feel pushed to extreme measures by the constant threat that the Templar represent. Both Jowan and Uldred are corrupted because they seek emancipation from the Templar's Sword of Damocles.

And yet, Ander really highlights the risks of possession, even by benevolent spirits. Mages should just never allow themselves to be possessed, under any circumstances. Yes, even Wynne. Do we learn what she eventually became?

Mages are dangerous. But the Templar solution is, in opinion, merely putting pressure on the whole solution instead of mitigating the issue. More individuals are pushed to turning Blood Mage or Abomination than might be prevented.

Edit: i am not that verse in the Mage/Templar controversy. I always been waaay more interested in Orzammar politics. As an Aeducan Prince, i knew picking Bhelen and having him acknowledge my son was the best choice. He had my back no matter what, because i brought him power and prestige while not being any threats to his new kingship.

Have we even found out what happened to the other surviving Dwarven city? Kal-Sharok?

What exactly led Uldred to become an abomination is unclear, but the reason Templars exist is because in a vast majority of cases, "let" doesn't enter into the equation. Conner is the exception rather than the rule in that his demon could be exorcized. In most cases, that can't happen because the demon brute forces their way into the mage.

[Douglas]

Yes, even Wynne. Do we learn what she eventually became?
Her entry (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Wynne) on the dragon age wiki describes it.

[Sajiri]

recruit the attempting-to-rechain-them templars as allies

To be fair the templars you recruit aren't really the bad ones. Been a long time since I took that path in the game but as I recall they were the ones that were against using the red lyrium their superiors were coercing or forcing onto them and hunting down all the mages. And as I recall, all the templars you can run into out in the field fighting rebel mages were the ones that were a little too into the mage killing thing and used the opportunity to just run off and justify going on a killing spree.

Templars, in theory, I dont think are bad. I dont really like the idea of locking mages up in towers but considering how dangerous they can be they need some sort of system, it's an unfortunate side effect that power and fear causes even more conflict. There are templars that aren't bad people, just like there are mages that are jerks.


I kinda got my hopes up with the one Templar who had a crush on my character at the beginning... Then he goes psycho with the whole "kill all mages" thing when you return to Circle Tower.


That one templar, Cullen, is a recurring character in the series with more prominence later on. I disliked him in Origins but I guess he did go through some awful stuff. By Inquisition he's settled down a lot more, he ended up becoming one of my favourites despite how much I hated him in Origins.

[Dienekes]

I agree, but I think that by the third game she's not that bad. I think there's some character growth going on.

Kind of my point there.


All her truly negative qualities got shaved off by the third game. I don’t believe she even once went on a rant about how everyone in a negative situation are inherently weak and only have themselves to blame. She actually changes quite a bit.

Which is all the more amusing since just about the only thing that my canonical Grey Warden did for her was give her a mirror and then said she was wrong and being selfish a lot.

Then suddenly shazam she’s back and is pretty alright all things considering.

It works if you took the poetic route and saw her as some kind of diamond in the rough. I didn’t. I saw her as pretty much a waste of space and potential my first play through. So her shift becomes jarring. Because we were all supposed to think about these games from the poetic perspective. We’re supposed to have high minded morals about redemption and the inherent good in everyone. Hell, even Loghain.

While thinking through things logically doesn’t get you far. You should not trust Morrigan with any child much less the god-baby. Nothing about her makes her out to be an adequate mother. Yet she is.

Leaving a demon that has proven totally capable of destroying a city alone for weeks while you go get people to drive it off is a stupid plan. Thankfully nothing bad happens, because it would be against narrative conventions to have a story arc where the right option is to murder a child.

Losing one mercenary unit in a fight is a good bargain to forge an alliance with a powerful foreign ally. Only, you see no benefits and only set up Iron Bull’s betrayal. While saving your friends. That’s what a hero would do, that’s the right choice.

Cullen is getting off lyrium which should effect his abilities to be a good commander. Should he put the most important military effort in the world on hold while he works on his addiction problems, when those additions in no ways currently hinder his abilities while withdrawals totally will? Of course he should, it’s part of his narrative arc to break from the old Templar traditions and there are literally no story developments hindered by your military strategist having his energies so thoroughly distorted.

Once you start thinking about the game and events in terms of character arcs and storytelling as opposed to what actually makes sense in reality just about everything makes sense in how things shake out.

Only exception I can think of is Orzammar where everything plays out exactly how it logically should. Part of why that is up there as my favorite decision Bioware has done.

[Anteros]

Some of this stuff should be in spoiler tags since the OP is still on the first game.


Kind of my point there.


All her truly negative qualities got shaved off by the third game. I don’t believe she even once went on a rant about how everyone in a negative situation are inherently weak and only have themselves to blame. She actually changes quite a bit.

Which is all the more amusing since just about the only thing that my canonical Grey Warden did for her was give her a mirror and then said she was wrong and being selfish a lot.

Then suddenly shazam she’s back and is pretty alright all things considering.

It works if you took the poetic route and saw her as some kind of diamond in the rough. I didn’t. I saw her as pretty much a waste of space and potential my first play through. So her shift becomes jarring. Because we were all supposed to think about these games from the poetic perspective. We’re supposed to have high minded morals about redemption and the inherent good in everyone. Hell, even Loghain.

While thinking through things logically doesn’t get you far. You should not trust Morrigan with any child much less the god-baby. Nothing about her makes her out to be an adequate mother. Yet she is.

Leaving a demon that has proven totally capable of destroying a city alone for weeks while you go get people to drive it off is a stupid plan. Thankfully nothing bad happens, because it would be against narrative conventions to have a story arc where the right option is to murder a child.

Losing one mercenary unit in a fight is a good bargain to forge an alliance with a powerful foreign ally. Only, you see no benefits and only set up Iron Bull’s betrayal. While saving your friends. That’s what a hero would do, that’s the right choice.

Cullen is getting off lyrium which should effect his abilities to be a good commander. Should he put the most important military effort in the world on hold while he works on his addiction problems, when those additions in no ways currently hinder his abilities while withdrawals totally will? Of course he should, it’s part of his narrative arc to break from the old Templar traditions and there are literally no story developments hindered by your military strategist having his energies so thoroughly distorted.

Once you start thinking about the game and events in terms of character arcs and storytelling as opposed to what actually makes sense in reality just about everything makes sense in how things shake out.

Only exception I can think of is Orzammar where everything plays out exactly how it logically should. Part of why that is up there as my favorite decision Bioware has done.


I largely play these games that way anyway, so I guess it doesn't bother me. If I want grimdark I'll go play Warhammer or something. It's nice to have games that actually let you be heroic, as well as games that punish you for your choices. I'm fine with either type of game, as long as they're consistent. It's when the consequences of your decisions seem arbitrary that I get annoyed.

Incidentally, I don't think the Mage's circle is that far away from the city. It's on the other side of a lake. Unless it's the biggest lake of all time, it's like a day at most.

[Giggling Ghast]

What exactly led Uldred to become an abomination is unclear, but the reason Templars exist is because in a vast majority of cases, "let" doesn't enter into the equation. Conner is the exception rather than the rule in that his demon could be exorcized. In most cases, that can't happen because the demon brute forces their way into the mage.

That I can answer. Uldred didn't become an abomination by choice. He attempted to summon a demon that proved too powerful to control and it possessed him.

But you are correct. Most mages don't choose to become abominations, but are forcibly possessed during a moment of weakness or desperation. Sometimes that's the result of an encounter with templars, but not always.

[Giggling Ghast]

Have we even found out what happened to the other surviving Dwarven city? Kal-Sharok?

They're still around, but they're ... strange. They're extremely xenophobic; trying to even approach Kal-Sharok without consent will get you killed.

In DAI, there are War Table operations concerning Kal-Sharok. In one, they offer (via notes) to open a tunnel that will let you ambush the Venatori. If you don't follow their instructions exactly, they collapse the tunnel with your men in it.

[Douglas]

Speaking of mages allowing themselves to be possessed, I was disappointed when I discovered that there's no option in the mage origin to get a non-standard game over by falling for that Pride demon's deception. Even if you intentionally choose the most naive possible options, being completely gung-ho about letting this guy hitch a ride in your body, he just... lets you go, while maybe laughing a bit.

[Kaptin Keen]

Maybe slightly off topic, but - inspired in part by this thread, I finally bought Dragon Age 2.

What ... a crap game ... this is. Wow. I am thoroughly astonished. But I love the universe, so I hope the story will be worth it.

[Keltest]

Maybe slightly off topic, but - inspired in part by this thread, I finally bought Dragon Age 2.

What ... a crap game ... this is. Wow. I am thoroughly astonished. But I love the universe, so I hope the story will be worth it.

Speaking from experience... it isn't. not remotely. You'd be better off reading a summary online and skipping straight to Inquisition. Spare yourself the displeasure.

[Ronnoc]

Maybe slightly off topic, but - inspired in part by this thread, I finally bought Dragon Age 2.

What ... a crap game ... this is. Wow. I am thoroughly astonished. But I love the universe, so I hope the story will be worth it.

It depends on what you want out of the story, if you're wanting the standard rpg tropes of saving the world and making a difference you are going to be sorely disappointed. If you're ok with a more character focused story, then it's quite enjoyable and if you got an edition with the dlc's Legacy is one of my favorite bits of content in the DA series.

[Maryring]

Yes, that's the point. They don't know whats going on to get that end result. Cassandra isn't a mage, so it isn't just a matter of isolating time as the only variable. The only thing they know for certain is that friendly spirits can break tranquility.

I'm sorry. What is your point? They don't know the end result? That isn't accurate. They know that the end result of a successful vigil is immunity to possession. Or that it might be different for mages? The game not only explicitly says that the reason for emotional instability was how long it took between tranquility and restoration, but that's ultimately just a reason for why they should do more research into how it works, rather than try to stifle and kill the knowledge.

[Keltest]

I'm sorry. What is your point? They don't know the end result? That isn't accurate. They know that the end result of a successful vigil is immunity to possession. Or that it might be different for mages? The game not only explicitly says that the reason for emotional instability was how long it took between tranquility and restoration, but that's ultimately just a reason for why they should do more research into how it works, rather than try to stifle and kill the knowledge.

A: The game DOESNT say that. Its speculation on the part of the characters, and Cassandra flat out admits that this might not pan out as a viable cure.

B: tranquility doesn't actually render you immune to possession, contrary to popular belief. It makes you invisible and uninteresting to demons and spirits, but if they were directed to you via an outside source, you can still be possessed. There are a few rare examples of that happening, mostly in the books.

[Kaptin Keen]

Speaking from experience... it isn't. not remotely. You'd be better off reading a summary online and skipping straight to Inquisition. Spare yourself the displeasure.

Oh =(


It depends on what you want out of the story, if you're wanting the standard rpg tropes of saving the world and making a difference you are going to be sorely disappointed. If you're ok with a more character focused story, then it's quite enjoyable and if you got an edition with the dlc's Legacy is one of my favorite bits of content in the DA series.

Oooh =)

One of the big mistakes games, books, movies and any other media you can imagine does over and over again is that they do the same thing, over and over again. Which Spiderman movie doesn't feature some version of the Green Goblin? Is there one with Venom? Frankly I don't recall, but that's beside the point. Ironman keeps fighting his own Evil Twin, in some form or other.

That's why I love X-Men: Logan. Because it's a much smaller scale conflict, much more gritty and personal.

So .. I'll finish DA2, and see what comes next. To play Inquisition, I'll likely need to upgrade my hardware anyways =)

[Giggling Ghast]

If you are going to continue playing DA2, I recommend strongly you invest in the Legacy DLC, as it has a YUUUGE impact on the events of DAI. You can play Legacy at any point in the game once you start Act 1, including after the main story has completed.

[Maryring]

A: The game DOESNT say that. Its speculation on the part of the characters, and Cassandra flat out admits that this might not pan out as a viable cure.

B: tranquility doesn't actually render you immune to possession, contrary to popular belief. It makes you invisible and uninteresting to demons and spirits, but if they were directed to you via an outside source, you can still be possessed. There are a few rare examples of that happening, mostly in the books.

Cassandra DOES flat out state that Seekers gain immunity to possession.

Cassandra: “Entirely. A templar’s abilities come from lyrium and are designed to hunt mages. Ours come from ritual and many years of dedicated training. We cannot be possessed by demons and are immune to mind control. Useful, considering our role. Seekers can gain other gifts, though that depends on the individual.”

Cassandra: “If the vigil was not so arduous, I’d say more should should attempt it. What if mages never needed to fear possession by demons? I’m told it is impossible, however. I suppose I’ll never know the truth of it now.”

Part B is a disruptive and weak argument that amounts to "it's not perfect and thus not worth attempting".

[Kaptin Keen]

If you are going to continue playing DA2, I recommend strongly you invest in the Legacy DLC, as it has a YUUUGE impact on the events of DAI. You can play Legacy at any point in the game once you start Act 1, including after the main story has completed.

Um ... I'll certainly consider it. But I bought DA2 for an absolute pittance (since it got such a scathing reception, I wasn't going to pay much - I consider this a post-purchase =)

So I'll require the expansion to be dirt cheap too =)

[Keltest]

Cassandra DOES flat out state that Seekers gain immunity to possession.

Cassandra: “Entirely. A templar’s abilities come from lyrium and are designed to hunt mages. Ours come from ritual and many years of dedicated training. We cannot be possessed by demons and are immune to mind control. Useful, considering our role. Seekers can gain other gifts, though that depends on the individual.”

Cassandra: “If the vigil was not so arduous, I’d say more should should attempt it. What if mages never needed to fear possession by demons? I’m told it is impossible, however. I suppose I’ll never know the truth of it now.”

Part B is a disruptive and weak argument that amounts to "it's not perfect and thus not worth attempting".

"I'm told its impossible, however."

Well there you go. They cant do it. Why? Who knows, its not really material to the point that it isn't a viable method of protecting mages. And even if it can be done, the vigil is, as Cassandra mentions, arduous. Its not something feasible to expect every mage to be able to accomplish. So youre STILL back to it not being a useful method for protecting mages as a group.

[Giggling Ghast]

Um ... I'll certainly consider it. But I bought DA2 for an absolute pittance (since it got such a scathing reception, I wasn't going to pay much - I consider this a post-purchase =)

So I'll require the expansion to be dirt cheap too =)It's about $10, as I see it. It's not quite an expansion — you can complete it in about four hours, depending on your play style.

Hey, speaking of Dragon Age 2, anyone hear that Varric's book Hard in Hightown is being published this summer?

https://kotaku.com/dragon-ages-varric-is-getting-his-famous-book-published-1821844977

[Dienekes]

Maybe slightly off topic, but - inspired in part by this thread, I finally bought Dragon Age 2.

What ... a crap game ... this is. Wow. I am thoroughly astonished. But I love the universe, so I hope the story will be worth it.

Thoughts on DA2

So, DA2 is probably my favorite concept for a game that Bioware has ever done. You stay put in one city for about 7 years watching as your influence grows and your city changes through your influence. One highly detailed city where you can explore ever nook and cranny.

Only, it turns out instead of being a unique new take on a rpg. It took place in one city because it was a rush job. The city is largely empty and unchanging. Outside of specific set piece moments the only real difference between the years is where some npcs are standing around doing nothing. And some doors are opened. Now each of the maps have some interesting design to them. But even here you can see the cracks. The most glaring example is the underground levels. There are about 3 caves around Kirkwall. You’d think each would be fully fleshed out caves to be interesting? Nope they’re all the exact same map. With the exact same features. Sometimes doors are opened. Sometimes not. This is clearly supposed to be the end of the tunnel. But Bioware decided to just shut a door and leave the entire map intact if you look at. It’s just lazy.

The combat is a missed opportunity. So, DA:O tried to strike a balance between tactical and action playstyles. This is tough since they basically require the exact opposite type of mechanics. The fact that DA:O succeeded as well as it did is to be commended. Even if I don’t think it succeeds all that well. The schizophrenic nature did allow me to play by my personal playstyles or pausing every few seconds and planning out my next couple steps. I’m a tactical player at heart. Unfortunately, outside of specific builds only one class has any notable tactical options that have fun gameplay involved. The other two are basically just there to open chests or get stabbed. At least until the Mages get a prestige class that lets them get stabbed too.

DA2 did one thing great. And tried to give every class interesting tactical options. And holy balls people were using two-handed weapons kinda fast. Not like swinging a sword is giving them a hernia. Bravo. Unfortunately, the focus is far more on action style gameplay. Which the combat system doesn’t actually do all that well. Not when compared to actual action rpgs like Dark Souls or Witcher or hell even Legend of Zelda. And that’s not even getting into the encounter design. Which is frankly atrocious. Do everything in 3 waves. Everything.

Then we get to the story. Frankly, the most interesting story of any Bioware game. In concept. 3 separate stories that build on previous themes. Exploring the deep seated structural problems of Kirkwall and your companions. There’s political intrigue, opposing ideologies. Doing your best to keep your home safe against impossible odds. That’s far more interesting than the cookie cutter world ending threats that Bioware loves throwing at their audience.

Except the execution is botched like everything else. It becomes less a test of ideals and more a test of your patience as you grow to hate everyone you talk to who isn’t named Varric. The plot revolves around which character is holding the idiot ball for no reason. Until the final chapter and you just want to leave.

That’s the biggest flaw of it all. For the concept to work Bioware had to make us love Kirkwall and care about the people. And they failed.

Also, they have the tag line “fight like a Spartan” and you can’t even equip a spear! That’s just offensive on a fundamental level.

[Joran]

Out of genuine curiosity, is anybody here actually satisfied - deep down, "I done good" satisfied - by the choices and resolutions offered you in either Dragon Age or Mass Effect?

It feels like these days Bioware's approach to story-telling is:

A. Present a horrible situation.
B. Present the player with equally horrible options.
C. Make the player feel bad about their decisions.

Accompanied by NPCs who are only too happy to tell you how terrible you are at decision-making.

Maybe I'm just being a grump, but replaying BG2 has revived memories of a time when RPGs didn't make a player's misery Priority No. 1.

Mass Effect 2 is my favorite game of all time. I liked how the decisions in ME1 impacted ME2 and it was a really personal story with the crew. ME3 was kind of a step back, because the developers shoe-horned everything back into place and your decisions ended up only being reflected in a pure numerical readiness score. I got the ending I wanted (Red Ending, renegade, I always expected a sacrifice needed to be made), so I wasn't particularly annoyed at the developers as some people were.

For DA2, I think I was supposed to care about Kirkwall, but found somewhere in Act 3, thinking to myself "why does my character stay here? This place sucks and I have had nothing but pain and suffering here." She was a Rogue that romanced Merrill so there was no personal stake for her in the Mage/Templar conflict.

I vaguely remember enjoying DA1 and DAI.


In Dragon Age: Inquisition, Cassandra reveals that the Tranquility rite is used in a process to make someone immune to possession. In other words, it is possible to render Mages less of a risk. They can still decide to throw fireballs into crowded locations, but it won't be because they're possessed by a demon. This is exposited more upon in one of the books, where the cure for Tranquility is revealed.

The Mage/Templar conflict is artificially induced to put two sets of people against one another, creating tension let those in power remain in power and the reasonable thing to do is to get rid of a corrupt system that keeps Templars in line with training meant to dehumanise Mages and get them addicted to a chemical substance, while using them to cultivate a culture of fear and loathing for a minority population, turning the majority against them while leaving their only recourse to be either a horribly abusive system, living in fear and paranoia while trying to suppress your power, or expulsion from all that is society.

Frankly. It's been quite effective.


In defense of Anders. At the end his actions are implied to be the result of a spirit possession. I can understand that lack of hope breeds desperation. He's still an idiot, just not as big an idiot as everyone else.

Merrill on the other hand is always an idiot.

The game really dropped the ball on Bethany and Carver. Killing one of them at the start weakened their stories and leaves a big whooping "what could have been" for the many possible explorations of the mage/templar conflicts while drawing Hawke in two different directions. Instead they might as well not exist for all the good their presence have on the story.

The best part about siding with the mages at the end is that you get to kill Fenris. Worst. Companion. Ever!

I'm the resident defender of Merrill, so I'll just pop in to say that her actions make complete sense according to Dalish tradition and custom and her Keeper was a terrible teacher and leader. Sure, Merrill is obsessive and naive, but she needed guidance and her Keeper was absolutely garbage at it.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Plus Merrill was super cute. But yeah, terrible from a Chantry-raised perspective, but from a poorly-guided-Dalish perspective, she's not too out there.

[Dienekes]

Plus Merrill was super cute. But yeah, terrible from a Chantry-raised perspective, but from a poorly-guided-Dalish perspective, she's not too out there.

I think this was kind of why mostly I didn't like Merrill. She rides too heavily on being super cute. Being cute in that naive innocent way doesn't really have any appeal to me, honestly, when that's most of a person's personality I tend to just get annoyed by them.

Add in her doing things that had me yelling at my computer calling her idiotic, and you get why I wasn't a fan.

Yes, her Keeper was somehow even stupider. But Merril wasn't exactly winning any Nobel Prizes anytime soon. And since they're both mages, they both fell into the mages are all self-destructive nincompoops category.

[Anteros]

The amount of effort it takes to get her to stop being self destructive and dangerous to everyone around her is truly astounding. She's honestly the poster child for why Templars are necessary.

[Crow]

Merrill is much easier to deal with if you pretend she has Asperger's.

[Giggling Ghast]

Merrill's flaw is her pride; she arrogantly believes that she can control the consequences of her actions and limit them to herself. She never considered that Marethari would be willing to sacrifice everything — even her own soul and (potentially) the lives of her clan members — to keep her from harm. What Marethari did was brave, but also immensely foolish.

I really loved Merrill in spite of her flaws. She still ranks as one of my favourite companions, both in terms of her personality and her combat ability.

[Psyren]

There is actual slavery in Thedas, and the version practiced in the Circle of Magi sure as hell ain’t it. It’s more akin to a quarantine, where the diseased (ie. mages) are kept separate from the rest of the population to prevent their disease (ie. magic) from harming the general public, as well as to keep the public from harming them.

Your analogy works fine when mages are pubescent waifs with no training or control, and very few defenses against demonic possession. It breaks down swiftly when you realize that even the most responsible and skilled mages are kept under lock and key for their entire adult lives too, and forbidden even basic freedoms like romance, unless they catch the eye of someone with enough political clout to bend the rules (as Vivienne did), or there is literally an existential threat to the continent that creates a loophole (as every other circle mage protagonist - Anders, Wynne, Bethany, and the playable ones - did.) Put another way - what is the donkey boffing point of all that training and harrowing if not to make you safe, and what is the donkey boffing point of making you safe if you're going to face life in prison regardless?


Merrill is much easier to deal with if you pretend she has Asperger's.

She might very well be on some fantasy equivalent of the spectrum, as is Sera, but I fail to see why that would necessarily be a bad thing.


Speaking of mages allowing themselves to be possessed, I was disappointed when I discovered that there's no option in the mage origin to get a non-standard game over by falling for that Pride demon's deception. Even if you intentionally choose the most naive possible options, being completely gung-ho about letting this guy hitch a ride in your body, he just... lets you go, while maybe laughing a bit.

DAI sort of lets you do this with Envy. (Hilarity ensues)

[Dienekes]

Your analogy works fine when mages are pubescent waifs with no training or control, and very few defenses against demonic possession. It breaks down swiftly when you realize that even the most responsible and skilled mages are kept under lock and key for their entire adult lives too, and forbidden even basic freedoms like romance, unless they catch the eye of someone with enough political clout to bend the rules (as Vivienne did), or there is literally an existential threat to the continent that creates a loophole (as every other circle mage protagonist - Anders, Wynne, Bethany, and the playable ones - did.) Put another way - what is the donkey boffing point of all that training and harrowing if not to make you safe, and what is the donkey boffing point of making you safe if you're going to face life in prison regardless?

Aye, a personal belief is that a "perfect" system would be keeping Mages in school until 21 or something, before they are released out into the world. Make the rules that they have to keep in contact of the closest Circle. Have a biannual check up with a templar and cleric* to make sure they're still sane. While putting Mages in the upper echelons of the Templar order as well.

Mind you, I don't know how actually practical this system is. It's easy to say this sort of thing, when I don't have to balance books or check manpower. And undoubtedly, many people would still rankle under these restriction as well.

*closest thing I can think of to a psychiatrist in setting.




She might very well be on some fantasy equivalent of the spectrum, as is Sera, but I fail to see why that would necessarily be a bad thing.


I don't think Crow meant to say it negatively, just a way to help rationalize her actions and understand her motivations.

[Psyren]

They can't even claim that the threat of possession is omnipresent as an excuse. I mean, clearly it is, much in the same way that a veteran soldier could always trip and fall on their sword one day, but the existence of Tevinter proves that instilling lifelong resistance/control in circle mages who aren't cooped up in a tower forever is not just possible, it's pretty routine. Now, obviously Tevinter is not the best model in other ways, because their magisters are at best grasping and amoral, but in a pure "teach otherwise peaceful mages control so they are safe to be around" sense, Ferelden and Orlais have a lot they could learn. By all means, keep the existing rules that mages can't hold titles and lands, but let them at least rent an apartment somewhere and see their families if they want to.

And I agree - I think "mages as templars" in a kind of magical enforcement unit, rather than the whole us-vs-them dynamic, would be key to Thedas' long term survival. Community Policing, but on a much grander and more metaphysical scale. And the neo-Circle would keep a registry of non-Circle-affiliated magic users, like the Dalish Firsts system and the Mortalitasi, and simply check on them from time to time whenever they have dealings in Chantry-controlled lands (but without apprehending them unless they get up to mischief or show signs of possession.)

[Dienekes]

They can't even claim that the threat of possession is omnipresent as an excuse. I mean, clearly it is, much in the same way that a veteran soldier could always trip and fall on their sword one day, but the existence of Tevinter proves that instilling lifelong resistance/control in circle mages who aren't cooped up in a tower forever is not just possible, it's pretty routine. Now, obviously Tevinter is not the best model in other ways, because their magisters are at best grasping and amoral, but in a pure "teach otherwise peaceful mages control so they are safe to be around" sense, Ferelden and Orlais have a lot they could learn. By all means, keep the existing rules that mages can't hold titles and lands, but let them at least rent an apartment somewhere and see their families if they want to.

Tevinter shows that possession is not always a problem, true. Though, I am curious about numbers of Vint mages that do become possessed. I have a feeling that it's larger than 0.

But Tevinter does show the other side of problem. Demons are one reason why mages are dangerous. The other reason why mages are dangerous is because they naturally bend the physical world to their will and gain more power by sacrificing people for their blood. Templar are also supposed to make sure that doesn't happen. And, to be fair, except in Tevinter itself they've done that.

In my mind, the whole conclave of mages with political asperations are if anything even more terrifying than demon possession. Sure demons can possess a fool and go all crazy and destroy a town. But demons are small minded cretins that bask in their own emotions. It's the powerful mages with asperations of grandeur and few morals that are the real problem. They're the ones who:


-ruled the ancient elves with an iron fist
-killed off the titans and broke the dwarves
-brought the Taint to Thedas
-are actively trying to bring about the apocalypse


And they're the ones that a system needs to take account of. Any system that doesn't, is kind of doomed to fail.

I mean, all systems are doomed to fail eventually. That's the nature of systems. But still, at least prolonging the inevitable here.

[Giggling Ghast]

Your analogy works fine when mages are pubescent waifs with no training or control, and very few defenses against demonic possession. It breaks down swiftly when you realize that even the most responsible and skilled mages are kept under lock and key for their entire adult lives too, and forbidden even basic freedoms like romance, unless they catch the eye of someone with enough political clout to bend the rules (as Vivienne did), or there is literally an existential threat to the continent that creates a loophole (as every other circle mage protagonist - Anders, Wynne, Bethany, and the playable ones - did.)

Except even skilled mages like Wynne, Dorian and Vivienne admit that all it takes is one slip and poof! abomination time!


Put another way - what is the donkey boffing point of all that training and harrowing if not to make you safe, and what is the donkey boffing point of making you safe if you're going to face life in prison regardless?

"What is the point of putting people through a driving test if they can still get into car accidents after they get their licence?"

Passing the Harrowing doesn't mean you don't pose a danger; it just means you don't pose an IMMEDIATE danger.

[Psyren]

Except even skilled mages like Wynne, Dorian and Vivienne admit that all it takes is one slip and poof! abomination time!

Sure, and one slip can mean impaling yourself on your sword. That doesn't mean it's easy, or Tevinter, Nevarra, and other places without circles would have been overrun by abominations long since.



"What is the point of putting people through a driving test if they can still get into car accidents after they get their licence?"

Passing the Harrowing doesn't mean you don't pose a danger; it just means you don't pose an IMMEDIATE danger.

Your solution is to put them through the driving test and then never let them leave the DMV, ever.


Tevinter shows that possession is not always a problem, true. Though, I am curious about numbers of Vint mages that do become possessed. I have a feeling that it's larger than 0.

The number of Chantry Circle Mages that become possessed is also larger than zero. If that is your benchmark for success, then the Circle of Magi and the Templars are also failures.

[Anteros]

Yeah...maybe you shouldn't use Wynne as an example since she's actually possessed.


Sure, and one slip can mean impaling yourself on your sword. That doesn't mean it's easy, or Tevinter, Nevarra, and other places without circles would have been overrun by abominations long since.

I'm willing to bet that Tevinter's system for dealing with mages who are potential liabilities is much less kind than Ferelden's. I'm also willing to bet that Tevinter doesn't mind if a few (thousand) peasants get slaughtered when their mages make mistakes. They basically view non mages as cattle.




Your solution is to put them through the driving test and then never let them leave the DMV, ever.

Except the destructive capabilities in question are more similar to a nuclear weapon than a car. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be giving teenagers the keys to a nuke no matter how many tests they pass.

[Psyren]

Yeah...maybe you shouldn't use Wynne as an example since she's actually possessed.

That didn't happen because she lost control or was improperly trained - it happened when she literally died defending the Circle.

It's also, pointedly, no different than what happens to the Seekers For Truth. Should they be locked up too?


I'm willing to bet that Tevinter's system for dealing with mages who are potential liabilities is much less kind than Ferelden's. I'm also willing to bet that Tevinter doesn't mind if a few (thousand) peasants get slaughtered when their mages make mistakes. They basically view non mages as cattle.

They execute sufficiently dangerous criminals, no different than Ferelden does. Abominations are just considered one more kind of criminal.

I'm unaware of Tevinter or Nevarra having any higher incidence of abomination than Ferelden or Orlais, any sources for that?



Except the destructive capabilities in question are more similar to a nuclear weapon than a car. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be giving teenagers the keys to a nuke no matter how many tests they pass.

I'm not suggesting that teenagers should be turned loose. But expecting your nukes to be brought out when you need them (e.g. Blights) and quietly shut up/away when you don't, shows unfitting naivete and disregard for their humanity.

[Giggling Ghast]

It’s hard to gauge Nevarra since they willingly create vessels for spirits to possess as part of their burial traditions.

“Nevarra has no problem with abominations! Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go down in the crypts filled with our venerated undead ancestors.”


Your solution is to put them through the driving test and then never let them leave the DMV, ever.

Untrue. There are mages that are given leave to reside outside the Circle without having to join the Wardens. Vivienne is the most notable example, but there was also Wilhelm from Honnleath and Amrita, the mage who the plant Amrita Vein is named for.

[Psyren]

It’s hard to gauge Nevarra since they willingly create vessels for spirits to possess as part of their burial traditions.

“Nevarra has no problem with abominations! Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go down in the crypts filled with our venerated undead ancestors.”

As Cole himself will tell you, DA necromancers work with fragments, not full spirits. This is why their undead don't become Horrors or other nasty things. They have no more tolerance for abominations than anyone else.



Untrue. There are mages that are given leave to reside outside the Circle without having to join the Wardens. Vivienne is the most notable example, but there was also Wilhelm from Honnleath and Amrita, the mage who the plant Amrita Vein is named for.

Great, so all you have to do is save all of Ferelden, make a world-changing discovery while fleeing for your life, or get noticed by the Empress herself. Clearly a viable route for most mages.

[Anteros]

That didn't happen because she lost control or was improperly trained - it happened when she literally died defending the Circle.

It's also, pointedly, no different than what happens to the Seekers For Truth. Should they be locked up too?



They execute sufficiently dangerous criminals, no different than Ferelden does. Abominations are just considered one more kind of criminal.

I'm unaware of Tevinter or Nevarra having any higher incidence of abomination than Ferelden or Orlais, any sources for that?



I'm not suggesting that teenagers should be turned loose. But expecting your nukes to be brought out when you need them (e.g. Blights) and quietly shut up/away when you don't, shows unfitting naivete and disregard for their humanity.

It's difficult to say because so much of what we hear about those areas could be propaganda or is colored by the teller's own bias. It's simple common sense though that if magic is much more common and unrestrained that there will be more incidents where mages lose control. Even if the Tevinter system is somehow better this would still likely hold true.

[Keltest]

Great, so all you have to do is save all of Ferelden, make a world-changing discovery while fleeing for your life, or get noticed by the Empress herself. Clearly a viable route for most mages.

Whats the alternative? There is absolutely nothing stopping, say, Morrigan from using blood magic to control the empress of Orlais and her entire court. Barring that, she still has the ability to conjure up an extremely destructive elemental maelstrom on a whim, shapeshift into various animals largely indistinguishable from the real thing, and cause protagonists to fall in love with her against all good sense. The only thing stopping Morrigan from doing that is Morrigan.

Any society where mages are allowed to run around without supervision has inevitably ended up with mages in charge, directly or indirectly, because once they get that powerful, there is almost no feasible way to get out from under their thumb. Heck, the last time it happened, it spawned a religion it was considered so miraculous.

Heck, Anders is the prime example of why his own philosophy is bad. He never gets training, he is never really supervised, and he ends up murdering a bunch of people, largely of his own volition, and sparks an immensely destructive war with untold casualties.

[Psyren]

It's difficult to say because so much of what we hear about those areas could be propaganda or is colored by the teller's own bias. It's simple common sense though that if magic is much more common and unrestrained that there will be more incidents where mages lose control. Even if the Tevinter system is somehow better this would still likely hold true.

But it's equally common sense that if mages aren't fleeing for their lives or pushed into desperate situations by being torn from their families and incarcerated indefinitely without trial, that fewer of them will feel the need to reach out to demons or try blood magic just to maintain their freedom. In short, if you do nothing but kick your dogs, you don't get to act surprised when they bite.


Whats the alternative? There is absolutely nothing stopping, say, Morrigan from using blood magic to control the empress of Orlais and her entire court.

Nothing except that it's blatantly obvious when someone is being controlled that way. And also that any odd behavior could easily be traced to the day some weird apostate started hanging out with her. Morrigan isn't an idiot.



Barring that, she still has the ability to conjure up an extremely destructive elemental maelstrom on a whim, shapeshift into various animals largely indistinguishable from the real thing, and cause protagonists to fall in love with her against all good sense. The only thing stopping Morrigan from doing that is Morrigan.

Any society where mages are allowed to run around without supervision has inevitably ended up with mages in charge, directly or indirectly, because once they get that powerful, there is almost no feasible way to get out from under their thumb. Heck, the last time it happened, it spawned a religion it was considered so miraculous.

Where the heck are you getting "without supervision" from? :smallconfused:

You'll note that I never said anything about getting rid of templars. A magic-resistant police force is a good thing to have even if all your mages are meek as lambs. For starters, darkspawn use magic too, as do demons and even rival nations.

So by all means police mages, keep track of them, but locking them up forever solely because of what they might do is untenable. As Solas rightly mentioned, you're putting a lid on a boiling cookpot and declaring the situation resolved because you can't see what's happening inside.

[Keltest]

Nothing except that it's blatantly obvious when someone is being controlled that way. And also that any odd behavior could easily be traced to the day some weird apostate started hanging out with her. Morrigan isn't an idiot.

I mean, you say that, but how many people actually interact with the empress with any regularity? And even if she gets immediately caught and the empress is overthrown, that's still a mass chaos situation.


Where the heck are you getting "without supervision" from? :smallconfused:

You'll note that I never said anything about getting rid of templars. A magic-resistant police force is a good thing to have even if all your mages are meek as lambs. For starters, darkspawn use magic too, as do demons and even rival nations.

So by all means police mages, keep track of them, but locking them up forever solely because of what they might do is untenable.

Thedas is big. The Templars are already largely unable to track down existing apostates. Even Anders was able to fairly frequently evade them, and they had a phylactery for him. Its just not practical to keep every village hermit mage in a backwater mountain village under supervision, and frankly, I'm not sure how "this is your personal executioner, who will follow you around for all your life, in case you do something we don't like" is any better than just locking them up in the tower.

[Psyren]

I mean, you say that, but how many people actually interact with the empress with any regularity? And even if she gets immediately caught and the empress is overthrown, that's still a mass chaos situation.

It's also a scenario that could happen even with the chantry and templars in place, so I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be. There's been a "court mage" position in Orlais for years before the events of Inquisition, that's the position Vivienne used to hold after all.

Besides, if you're really worried about elected officials being swayed by secret blood mages, just require the Litany of Adralla to be recited before every court session or something.

(And lastly, "blood magic" is not the absolute you think it is - strong-willed people can resist/break it, and the Empress - Celene anyway - is certainly that.)



Thedas is big. The Templars are already largely unable to track down existing apostates.

That's because 80% of them are standing around in towers doing nothing of value, not safeguarding villages. They also don't have any mages helping them, all because of this nonsensical dichotomy.

[Keltest]

It's also a scenario that could happen even with the chantry and templars in place, so I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be. There's been a "court mage" position in Orlais for years before the events of Inquisition, that's the position Vivienne used to hold after all.

Besides, if you're really worried about elected officials being swayed by secret blood mages, just require the Litany of Adralla to be recited before every court session or something.



That's because 80% of them are standing around in towers doing nothing of value, not safeguarding villages. They also don't have any mages helping them, all because of this nonsensical dichotomy.

I think youre missing my point. Look at tevinter. According to Dorian, it started off a lot like Ferelden and Orlais. And then it changed, by inches, into the corrupt magocracy where Templars are tools wielded by the mages against other mages, blood magic is only nominally illegal, and where magical bloodlines are more important than the actual mages. And its not like the mages had an uprising and took over, they just... inherited Tevinter as time went on, because people weren't willing to take a hard line and say things like "No blood sacrifice" and actually back up that stance.

Also, of the circles we have seen, BOTH of them have erupted into blood-magic-driven chaos in spite of the Templars present there. If the Templars can barely hold order in their strongholds, what hope do they have of policing the entire nation? The entire southern half of the world?

[Psyren]

I think youre missing my point. Look at tevinter. According to Dorian, it started off a lot like Ferelden and Orlais. And then it changed, by inches, into the corrupt magocracy where Templars are tools wielded by the mages against other mages, blood magic is only nominally illegal, and where magical bloodlines are more important than the actual mages. And its not like the mages had an uprising and took over, they just... inherited Tevinter as time went on, because people weren't willing to take a hard line and say things like "No blood sacrifice" and actually back up that stance.

Also, of the circles we have seen, BOTH of them have erupted into blood-magic-driven chaos in spite of the Templars present there. If the Templars can barely hold order in their strongholds, what hope do they have of policing the entire nation? The entire southern half of the world?

1) Tevinter didn't "start off" like Ferelden and Orlais at all. The Imperium was a corrupt magocracy from the days of Arlathan and the First Blight, up through Andraste's rebellion and the founding of the Chantry; the fact that it's going back in that direction is because that was it's roots, not because mages are destined to go that way if they aren't herded like cattle. And not all (or even most) of the mages there want that, the only real danger is when some bygone relic like Corypheus shows up to stir the pot. Dorian tells you all this himself.

2) Non-Tevinter cultures manage without cramming all their magic-users into a Circle, or mutilating them. The Dalish don't have Magisters, and neither does Nevarra. What's your excuse for them?

3) Even if you set every Circle Mage free with no Templars at all (again, not what I'm advocating for), their colleges would remain to police each other. Only the Lucrosians and the more militant Libertarians might be at risk of becoming Magisters, and they are a vanishing minority. Aequitarians (the dominant faction) along with Isolationists and Loyalists would all be there to oppose them.

[Crow]

I don't think Crow meant to say it negatively, just a way to help rationalize her actions and understand her motivations.

This is in fact what I meant.

[Dienekes]

The number of Chantry Circle Mages that become possessed is also larger than zero. If that is your benchmark for success, then the Circle of Magi and the Templars are also failures.

True, but I will say areas with Chantry Circles and Templars aren't controlled by a cabal of mages that seem to have a penchant for buying slaves in mass to use for blood magic rituals.

That's what I consider the benchmark for success.

[Psyren]

True, but I will say areas with Chantry Circles and Templars aren't controlled by a cabal of mages that seem to have a penchant for buying slaves in mass to use for blood magic rituals.

That's what I consider the benchmark for success.

You're solving for a problem that hasn't existed since Andraste's day; not even in (modern) Tevinter itself. The only mass blood magic ritual we've seen in modern times was
The Grey Wardens being fooled into it by Corypheus during Inquisition which had nothing to do with the Circle anyway. Again, nobody is doing any of the stuff you're advocating punishing all mages for.

[Giggling Ghast]

OK, there's some confusing language here. Yes, slavery isn't (generally) practiced in Thedas except in the Tevinter Imperium, but we've encountered some pretty awful situations created by the use of blood magic.

Zathrian's werewolf curse? Blood magic. The Blackmarsh? Blood magic. The Harvester? Blood magic, at least in the case of the latter. The Still Ruins? Blood magic.

[Dienekes]

You're solving for a problem that hasn't existed since Andraste's day; not even in (modern) Tevinter itself. The only mass blood magic ritual we've seen in modern times was
The Grey Wardens being fooled into it by Corypheus during Inquisition which had nothing to do with the Circle anyway. Again, nobody is doing any of the stuff you're advocating punishing all mages for.

You find a Tevinter slave trader aquiring blood sacrifices in Denerim all the way back in Dragon Age Origins.

It's still happening there, just out of sight. This is later confirmed with Fenris talking about his master's use of blood magic.

And furthermore, even if it wasn't happening anywhere on the globe, currently. Any plan on how to deal with the mage situation must account for that possibilty or it is a plan that is doomed to fail. You don't make systems of governance under the assumption that everything will run smoothly and everyone will be nice to each other. That's just delusional. You must account for the worst case scenarios.

[Psyren]

OK, there's some confusing language here. Yes, slavery isn't (generally) practiced in Thedas except in the Tevinter Imperium, but we've encountered some pretty awful situations created by the use of blood magic.

Zathrian's werewolf curse? Blood magic. The Blackmarsh? Blood magic. The Harvester? Blood magic, at least in the case of the latter. The Still Ruins? Blood magic.


You find a Tevinter slave trader aquiring blood sacrifices in Denerim all the way back in Dragon Age Origins.

It's still happening there, just out of sight. This is later confirmed with Fenris talking about his master's use of blood magic.

Yes, Maleficar should not be tolerated. I've never said otherwise. Doesn't change the fact that nothing on the scale of the Tevinter of old is happening now.



And furthermore, even if it wasn't happening anywhere on the globe, currently. Any plan on how to deal with the mage situation must account for that possibilty or it is a plan that is doomed to fail. You don't make systems of governance under the assumption that everything will run smoothly and everyone will be nice to each other. That's just delusional. You must account for the worst case scenarios.

If we're resorting to oblique insults, then it is delusional to expect that mass life imprisonment and lobotomy is a reasonable long-term solution to the problem. It didn't work in X-Men and it won't work here. You want your Chantry blown up? That's how you get your Chantry blown up. People will fight for freedom (and reforms) or die trying; and even if you can somehow win and exterminate all the mages for good, then good luck against the next Blight without them.

[Giggling Ghast]

You find a Tevinter slave trader aquiring blood sacrifices in Denerim all the way back in Dragon Age Origins.

Well, technically speaking, I think Caladrius was just a slaver who happened to be a blood mage.

To be clear, it's absolutely true that blood magic is practiced widely in Tevinter. What's condoned differs from what's forbidden, however. Beefing up your magic by using your own blood or that of a slave? Perfectly acceptable. Performing ritual sacrifices, summoning demons, controlling minds? THAT'S illegal, and so is kept behind closed doors.


People will fight for freedom (and reforms) or die trying; and even if you can somehow win and exterminate all the mages for good, then good luck against the next Blight without them.

I'm certainly not advocating for the annihilation of all mages; I'm not a qunari. But I believe the current system can work with some reforms, which is why I support Cassandra for the Divine. Anders' philosophy of "mages should be as free as any other man" will lead to devastation and tyranny.

[Psyren]

I'm certainly not advocating for the annihilation of all mages; I'm not a qunari. But I believe the current system can work with some reforms, which is why I support Cassandra for the Divine.

Is one of those reforms "you can leave the tower without there needing to be a national crisis going on or without being a celebrity?" Because if so, I can start to agree. But it seems that the mages themselves, with Cassandra as Divine reject the idea of rejoining the circle and form their College of Enchanters as a free-standing org instead.

[Giggling Ghast]

Well, she talks about letting the mages govern themselves with help, and the Templars should be protectors of the innocent. So maybe that means more freedom to travel ...? An epilogue screen can only communicate so much.

[salvadortorres]

I think this was kind of why mostly I didn't like Merrill. She rides too heavily on being super cute. Being cute in that naive innocent way doesn't really have any appeal to me, honestly, when that's most of a person's personality I tend to just get annoyed by them.

[Keltest]

1) Tevinter didn't "start off" like Ferelden and Orlais at all. The Imperium was a corrupt magocracy from the days of Arlathan and the First Blight, up through Andraste's rebellion and the founding of the Chantry; the fact that it's going back in that direction is because that was it's roots, not because mages are destined to go that way if they aren't herded like cattle. And not all (or even most) of the mages there want that, the only real danger is when some bygone relic like Corypheus shows up to stir the pot. Dorian tells you all this himself. You say that, but while there are moderates like Dorian, they aren't the ones in charge. The Tevinter-for-the-mages faction is in charge, and it shows. Dorian says all this as well.


2) Non-Tevinter cultures manage without cramming all their magic-users into a Circle, or mutilating them. The Dalish don't have Magisters, and neither does Nevarra. What's your excuse for them? The Dalish only have like three mages in any given clan, and they get rid of the remainder by sending them off into the woods to fend for themselves. And Nevarra, shockingly, has concerns that their mages are ruling through a puppet king.


3) Even if you set every Circle Mage free with no Templars at all (again, not what I'm advocating for), their colleges would remain to police each other. Only the Lucrosians and the more militant Libertarians might be at risk of becoming Magisters, and they are a vanishing minority. Aequitarians (the dominant faction) along with Isolationists and Loyalists would all be there to oppose them.

Mages, as a group, are a vanishingly small fraction of the population. They are no more capable of effectively policing each other across a nation or continent as the Templars are, and frankly a mage duel would be significantly more destructive than a fight between a mage and a Templar.

[Dienekes]

If we're resorting to oblique insults, then it is delusional to expect that mass life imprisonment and lobotomy is a reasonable long-term solution to the problem. It didn't work in X-Men and it won't work here. You want your Chantry blown up? That's how you get your Chantry blown up. People will fight for freedom (and reforms) or die trying; and even if you can somehow win and exterminate all the mages for good, then good luck against the next Blight without them.

That was not intended as an insult. It was meant to demonstrate how systems of power need to be understood. If it is not stressed tested. If it does not account for the worst case scenario it is a faulty system.

I agree with you, the current system is also fatally flawed. Part of why I have stated reforms I want, and have mentioned that I have sided with Mages every single game. However, that doesn’t somehow change the scenario. Perfectly brutally honest. A system where every 800 years a chantry gets blown up and a war occurs that have all the cards stacked against the Mages is preferable than one where everyone is under Blood Mage rule for those same 800 years.

Is it perfect? No. Of course not. Do I want reforms? Yes, of course I do.

I just want reforms in a way that won’t lead right to the magocracy in a century or two. Checks and balances and an eye toward systemic outcomes.


Well, technically speaking, I think Caladrius was just a slaver who happened to be a blood mage.

To be clear, it's absolutely true that blood magic is practiced widely in Tevinter. What's condoned differs from what's forbidden, however. Beefing up your magic by using your own blood or that of a slave? Perfectly acceptable. Performing ritual sacrifices, summoning demons, controlling minds? THAT'S illegal, and so is kept behind closed doors.


The slaver actually offers to kill all his slaves in a successful blood magic ritual to increase your power if you let him go. You’re right, he was not a magister himself, but he demonstrates exactly what the rules of blood magic set up as a system. It rewards murdering innocents, which is a horrible system that should be stomped out.

[Psyren]

You say that, but while there are moderates like Dorian, they aren't the ones in charge. The Tevinter-for-the-mages faction is in charge, and it shows. Dorian says all this as well.

No one is "in charge" of the Magisterium - like any Senate body, it has numerous factions, and devotes a great deal of time and energy to getting nothing accomplished; Dorian's moderates (the Lucerni) are meanwhile growing in influence.

In any event, by all accounts, the next big villains will be
The Qunari, Solas' elves that want to tear everything down, or both.


The Dalish only have like three mages in any given clan, and they get rid of the remainder by sending them off into the woods to fend for themselves. And Nevarra, shockingly, has concerns that their mages are ruling through a puppet king.

I thought your problem was mages doing mass blood rituals, which Nevarrans don't. Simply holding political power is not a crime, otherwise you should be wanting Vivienne (and indeed, Magequisitor) thrown in jail too.



Mages, as a group, are a vanishingly small fraction of the population. They are no more capable of effectively policing each other across a nation or continent as the Templars are, and frankly a mage duel would be significantly more destructive than a fight between a mage and a Templar.

That's why you still have Templars, who can dampen the errant troublemaker and limit their collateral damage. For the umpteenth time, I support having Templars around.


A system where every 800 years a chantry gets blown up and a war occurs that have all the cards stacked against the Mages is preferable than one where everyone is under Blood Mage rule for those same 800 years.

This false dichotomy you've spun out of whole cloth is why we won't see eye to eye. Nobody has actually tried a better way than pre-emptive punishment or slavery yet, and here you are declaring it won't work.



The slaver actually offers to kill all his slaves in a successful blood magic ritual to increase your power if you let him go. You’re right, he was not a magister himself, but he demonstrates exactly what the rules of blood magic set up as a system. It rewards murdering innocents, which is a horrible system that should be stomped out.

So stomp out maleficar then. #NotAllMages

The slaver dude was getting away with it because all of Ferelden's templars were too busy standing around a tower with their thumbs up their rectums to actually be out protecting the common folk from people abusing magic. Also, there was this thing called a Blight happening, so social order was pretty much shot.

[Dienekes]

This false dichotomy you've spun out of whole cloth is why we won't see eye to eye. Nobody has actually tried a better way than pre-emptive punishment or slavery yet, and here you are declaring it won't work.

I'm not saying all other systems beside pure slavery won't work. I am saying no other system in the game works thus far. And furthermore, I am asking how any other systems that we think up in our discussions deal with this issue. If the system does not have a means for dealing with this threat, then I believe that system is doomed to failure.

Like that's pretty basic political management. What's the worst thing that can happen to republics? A powerful military figure takes over and basically turns it into a dictatorship.

How did the Romans deal with this possibility? They thought that having everyone be loyal to the Republic was good enough. They were wrong, and later republics learned from their mistake.

How do modern republics deal with this issue? Usually with a lot of restrictions on people with both military and political power, a limiting factor on how long anyone can be put in power, and placing military hierarchy under the direct influence of elected leaders at their displeasure. And a whole hell of a lot more.

That is the goal here. To make a system where mage rule does not happen.


So stomp out maleficar then. #NotAllMages

The slaver dude was getting away with it because all of Ferelden's templars were too busy standing around a tower with their thumbs up their rectums to actually be out protecting the common folk from people abusing magic. Also, there was this thing called a Blight happening, so social order was pretty much shot.

And it is currently happening a lot in Tevinter. That's kind of the character's point. And Fenris' point, in DA2. Just stomping out the bad ones doesn't seem to be working, when the bad ones have already slipped into a position of control.

[Lord Raziere]

It depends on what you want out of the story, if you're wanting the standard rpg tropes of saving the world and making a difference you are going to be sorely disappointed. If you're ok with a more character focused story, then it's quite enjoyable and if you got an edition with the dlc's Legacy is one of my favorite bits of content in the DA series.

I actually find Dragon Age 2 to be one of the best Bioware games there is. You explore across time rather than than space, your playing a person that has just as much influence as a violent noble with an impulse towards doing good would actually have in politics, and all of your decisions are reasonable at the time while contributing to the wider tragedy in some way because the other characters aren't NPC's standing around waiting for you to make a decision and of course think they are the hero of the story trying to fix things themselves the only ways they know how from their limited experiences- just like you. its just that most people want sandboxes to do whatever they want in rather than experience a good story and examination of actual complex social problems. Dragon age 2 is basically Sociological Issues: The Game and how a standard adventurer, even one who does their best to not be a murderhobo, isn't really cut out to fix those issues.

[Keltest]

Psyren, none of your responses so far have dealt with the fact that a reactive approach to mages going out of control simply isn't good enough. When you react to a blood mage, people are already dead. Putting out a fire does little good if half the town burns down before you can get it under control.

If a mage shoots a fireball into a market square, if they summon a demon, if they undermine a building, that's not something that you can just react to and say the problem is solved.

So I ask again, besides keeping them under lock and key, whats an actual, practical solution to catching a malevolent mage before they hurt someone?

[Psyren]

Psyren, none of your responses so far have dealt with the fact that a reactive approach to mages going out of control simply isn't good enough. When you react to a blood mage, people are already dead. Putting out a fire does little good if half the town burns down before you can get it under control.

A reactive approach to murderers isn't good enough. We should lock people up if they show even the slightest capability that they might do wrong in the future.

A reactive approach to fire isn't good enough. Nobody can be trusted with such a dangerous material. We should lock up everyone who knows how to use fire for the safety of everyone else.



So I ask again, besides keeping them under lock and key, whats an actual, practical solution to catching a malevolent mage before they hurt someone?

This is begging the question - you have to prove they are malevolent before saying they need to be caught. Non-malevolent mages not only exist, they are the vast majority, just like literally every other group of people.


I'm not saying all other systems beside pure slavery won't work. I am saying no other system in the game works thus far.

There have been exactly two in the game. That College of Enchanters thing in the Inquisition epilogue? Never been done before, ever.



And it is currently happening a lot in Tevinter. That's kind of the character's point. And Fenris' point, in DA2. Just stomping out the bad ones doesn't seem to be working, when the bad ones have already slipped into a position of control.

Except it is. That is Dorian's point, and Leliana's, and Cassandra's, in DAI.

[Keltest]

A reactive approach to murderers isn't good enough. We should lock people up if they show even the slightest capability that they might do wrong in the future.

A reactive approach to fire isn't good enough. Nobody can be trusted with such a dangerous material. We should lock up everyone who knows how to use fire for the safety of everyone else.



This is begging the question - you have to prove they are malevolent before saying they need to be caught. Non-malevolent mages not only exist, they are the vast majority, just like literally every other group of people.



There have been exactly two in the game. That College of Enchanters thing in the Inquisition epilogue? Never been done before, ever.



Except it is. That is Dorian's point, and Leliana's, and Cassandra's, in DAI.

most societies require people to have licenses and training before we permit them to do specific dangerous activities, like driving, and even then they can only do those activities under specific restrictions and in certain areas. you cant just sell big explosive fireworks to people, for example, nor can you set them off in your back yard even if you are licensed to operate them.

But mages cant turn off their magic. They cant leave it at home, or at work. If you have somebody perpetually inside of a car, is the solution to just trust that they wont destroy anything, or restrict their behavior?

[Lector87]

Not to derail the thread - but isn't this the exact same ethical quandary hashed out in Marvel's mutant/superhero registration conflicts?

[Keltest]

Not to derail the thread - but isn't this the exact same ethical quandary hashed out in Marvel's mutant/superhero registration conflicts?

Its the same quandary they claim to hash out, anyway. I'm given to understand the writers basically usurped the story to make their own political point, and ruined it.

[Lector87]

Its the same quandary they claim to hash out, anyway. I'm given to understand the writers basically usurped the story to make their own political point, and ruined it.

Whatever one's issues with the rest of the storyline, at least it gave us the "tree beside the river of truth" speech. :smallcool:

[Psyren]

most societies require people to have licenses and training before we permit them to do specific dangerous activities, like driving, and even then they can only do those activities under specific restrictions and in certain areas. you cant just sell big explosive fireworks to people, for example, nor can you set them off in your back yard even if you are licensed to operate them.

But mages cant turn off their magic. They cant leave it at home, or at work. If you have somebody perpetually inside of a car, is the solution to just trust that they wont destroy anything, or restrict their behavior?

Our laws are punitive. If you drive without a license/training, you get punished accordingly. They don't lock you up as soon as your feet can reach the pedals just because you might end up behind the wheel one day.

In Tevinter, the Circles are academies where students can learn to control their art and not be a danger. What you're proposing is like turning Hogwarts into a lifelong prison because Slytherins exist, and not even all the Slytherins at that.

[Anteros]

Not to derail the thread - but isn't this the exact same ethical quandary hashed out in Marvel's mutant/superhero registration conflicts?

Sorta, but not exactly. In the Dragon Age universe all someone has to do is let their guard down even for a second while sleeping and they can kill entire towns with no one able to really mitigate the damage. The Marvel universe has a similar issue, but it's on a much smaller scale because most characters would have to make a conscious decision to inflict that level of damage, and there are other characters who could stop them.

Plus, in the Marvel universe the heroes are needed to stop the villains who will roam free no matter what legislature is passed. They're necessary for that world to continue existing.

[Keltest]

Our laws are punitive. If you drive without a license/training, you get punished accordingly. They don't lock you up as soon as your feet can reach the pedals just because you might end up behind the wheel one day.

In Tevinter, the Circles are academies where students can learn to control their art and not be a danger. What you're proposing is like turning Hogwarts into a lifelong prison because Slytherins exist, and not even all the Slytherins at that.

No, because you can get out of the car, you can leave the fireworks at the field, you can put your want away and otherwise stop playing with these super dangerous forces and resume your regular life. A mage in Thedas can't do that. They always are driving that car, they always have those fireworks, they always have their wand aimed at somebody.

If you tried to drive your car around the inside of your local mall, what do you think would happen? They probably wouldn't just shrug and assume youre careful enough to not hurt anybody.

[Psyren]

No, because you can get out of the car, you can leave the fireworks at the field, you can put your want away and otherwise stop playing with these super dangerous forces and resume your regular life. A mage in Thedas can't do that. They always are driving that car, they always have those fireworks, they always have their wand aimed at somebody.

Wrong, you are not always driving the car. Dorian, Vivienne et al. walk around outside very pointedly not doing magic all the time, as do many other mages.



If you tried to drive your car around the inside of your local mall, what do you think would happen? They probably wouldn't just shrug and assume youre careful enough to not hurt anybody.

Ah, but you COULD drive your car inside the mall. It would be wrong of you to do, but the potential is there. Better lock you up and throw away the key then, whatever your intentions might be, because you can therefore you will (your logic, not mine.)


Sorta, but not exactly. In the Dragon Age universe all someone has to do is let their guard down even for a second while sleeping and they can kill entire towns with no one able to really mitigate the damage.

The level of unconscious control given to mages is no different than that instilled in a mutant. By all means, round them up as teens to train them like you are now, but eventually you let them go free, otherwise you're just Auschwitz with a prettier door frame.

[Aeson]

Sorta, but not exactly. In the Dragon Age universe all someone has to do is let their guard down even for a second while sleeping and they can kill entire towns with no one able to really mitigate the damage.
Cities exist in Thedas, and existed long before Templars, the Chantry, or things such as the Circle Tower in DA:O and the Gallows in DA:2. It can therefore reasonably be assumed that, even without the supposed benefits of modern Chantry-associated magical institutions, the incidence of city-killing abominations is very, very low under anything approximating 'normal' circumstances.

Moreover, I would say given how the Circles, the Templars, and Templar-mage relations are portrayed, the existence of the modern Chantry-associated magical institutions makes it more likely for a mage to become a city-killing abomination, not less, because most free people do not want to spend life in prison or die, and yet those are the only two options that the Templars normally offer mages whether or not there is any positive evidence that the mages in question pose a real - not a hypothetical - threat to society.

Also, do we have any real evidence that "mage turns into city-killing abomination in his/her sleep" is anything more than a vaguely-plausible hypothetical risk that mages pose to society? Because most of the abominations I can recall seeing in the games were the result of mages consciously doing stupid things, and the only exception to that rule I can recall was an at best partially trained child. If we don't have such evidence, then "mages need to be imprisoned in sometimes-gilded cages for the rest of their natural lives because otherwise city-killing abominations" strikes me as a line of argument with about as much value as "nuclear power plants are bad because Hiroshima and Nagasaki."


The Marvel universe has a similar issue, but it's on a much smaller scale because ... there are other characters who could stop them.
There are other characters in the Dragon Age setting who could stop city-killing abominations, too. Maybe not before a lot of collateral damage occurs, but then, it's not like any superhero setting is any better if you think about what the logical consequences of, say, the Avengers battling space monsters in downtown New York are rather than skipping past it like the comics, cartoons, and movies usually do.

For that matter, in some ways I'd argue that locking mages up together makes it harder to stop city-killing abominations when they arise - magic is probably one of the best ways to deal with a hypothetical city-killing abomination, but no one is constantly on guard against attack and a city-killing abomination which arises amidst the mages has decent chances of catching them with their proverbial pants on the floor and killing or turning most of them before they can do anything about it.

[Keltest]

Wrong, you are not always driving the car. Dorian, Vivienne et al. walk around outside very pointedly not doing magic all the time, as do many other mages.



Ah, but you COULD drive your car inside the mall. It would be wrong of you to do, but the potential is there. Better lock you up and throw away the key then, whatever your intentions might be, because you can therefore you will (your logic, not mine.)



The level of unconscious control given to mages is no different than that instilled in a mutant. By all means, round them up as teens to train them like you are now, but eventually you let them go free, otherwise you're just Auschwitz with a prettier door frame.

I feel like youre deliberately avoiding my point here. The mages are always, actively in possession of a fantastically powerful and dangerous weapon which they cannot disarm and which has the possibility, however slight, of going off without warning. Giving every mage a personal Templar squad to go after them in case they go apostate isn't feasible.

Now, I'm not saying the Qunari have the right idea, and its pretty clear they are being willfully ignorant when it comes to magic. But there isn't a good option for keeping track of people who basically have bombs at their fingertips.

[Anteros]

Ah, but you COULD drive your car inside the mall. It would be wrong of you to do, but the potential is there. Better lock you up and throw away the key then, whatever your intentions might be, because you can therefore you will (your logic, not mine.)



The level of unconscious control given to mages is no different than that instilled in a mutant. By all means, round them up as teens to train them like you are now, but eventually you let them go free, otherwise you're just Auschwitz with a prettier door frame.

You undermine your own arguments when you post silly things like this and dance around the actual points.

[Psyren]

I feel like youre deliberately avoiding my point here. The mages are always, actively in possession of a fantastically powerful and dangerous weapon which they cannot disarm and which has the possibility, however slight, of going off without warning. Giving every mage a personal Templar squad to go after them in case they go apostate isn't feasible.

It's feasible because every mage doesn't need one. Nor half, nor 3/4. If you start from the assumption that they are all criminals, then obviously any solution except pre-emptively locking them up becomes ridiculous, but that is a ridiculous assumption to begin with.



Now, I'm not saying the Qunari have the right idea, and its pretty clear they are being willfully ignorant when it comes to magic. But there isn't a good option for keeping track of people who basically have bombs at their fingertips.

Fine then, strangle them all in the cradle. I could only hope that, if you were in such a universe, that your own children and loved ones would not end up being mages.

"Fear makes men more dangerous than magic ever could."

@Anteros: Because "eternal minority report" is not a point worth engaging.

[Anteros]

Fine then, strangle them all in the cradle. I could only hope that, if you were in such a universe, that your own children and loved ones would not end up being mages.

"Fear makes men more dangerous than magic ever could."

@Anteros: Because "eternal minority report" is not a point worth engaging.

No. You're just extremely misrepresenting everyone's position into something easier for you to argue against. No one can take your arguments seriously when you're comparing the circle to Auschwitz, or comparing a system of oversight to strangling babies in the cradle. Either argue the actual points or not at all. No one wants to argue in favor of all these ridiculous things you're making up that weren't even said.

[Psyren]

No. You're just extremely misrepresenting everyone's position into something easier for you to argue against. No one can take your arguments seriously when you're comparing the circle to Auschwitz, or comparing a system of oversight to strangling babies in the cradle. Either argue the actual points or not at all. No one wants to argue in favor of all these ridiculous things you're making up that weren't even said.

Pray tell - what would you compare lifelong imprisonment with no crime or trial, and the very real possibility of lobotomization for even middling infractions, to? If you have a better point of comparison, I'm all ears, chum.

[Keltest]

Pray tell - what would you compare lifelong imprisonment with no crime or trial, and the very real possibility of lobotomization for even middling infractions, to? If you have a better point of comparison, I'm all ears, chum.

The mages can't typically leave the circle towers without a specific mission, but its not like they never get to leave. If they want to go to, say, Denerim to buy herbs for potions, lets say, they just need to ask the Templars for an escort.

And there are plenty of mages who like being in the circles, because its not like the common people are going to trust or like them. The choice to rebel was an almost 50/50 split, with there being only one vote more in favor of rebellion.

[Psyren]

The mages can't typically leave the circle towers without a specific mission, but its not like they never get to leave. If they want to go to, say, Denerim to buy herbs for potions, lets say, they just need to ask the Templars for an escort.

They send Tranquil on these sorts of errands actually. Actual mages going outside even for something as banal as shopping are very, very rare.



And there are plenty of mages who like being in the circles, because its not like the common people are going to trust or like them. The choice to rebel was an almost 50/50 split, with there being only one vote more in favor of rebellion.

So you admit that your own statement of "every mage needs a personal templar squad to go after them" was useless hyperbole then? You've already cut even the pro-freedom voices in half.

And even if it is 50/50, should the half who want to stay in a tower be dictating the living arrangements of the other half? Why can't they just stay in the tower if they want to, and the ones who don't be free to leave? This is in fact
what ends up happening in the Trespasser epilogue with College + Circle, assuming Vivienne hasn't become a total see you next tuesday in the interim, and is likely to be the status quo when DA4 rolls around.

[Kish]

"The vote to start a massive war, which people in the game and in real life point to as a supposed justification to treat them even worse than previously, only passed by one vote. This proves half of them were happy with the status quo ante."

Something wrong with that logic. But I'm mainly posting to point out again, as I mentioned in my first post here (answering the thread-starting question, before the latest round of But They're Mages): A College and a Circle coexisting is the end of the Trespasser epilogue no matter what happened previously. In one of the more overt examples of Bioware laziness I've seen, they handwave some justification for the Circle reforming even if Leliana is Divine and you've done everything to promote mage freedom, and they handwave some justification for the College being permitted to form even if you helped Vivienne become Divine and did everything you could to grind the mages down.

[Keltest]

They send Tranquil on these sorts of errands actually. Actual mages going outside even for something as banal as shopping are very, very rare.



So you admit that your own statement of "every mage needs a personal templar squad to go after them" was useless hyperbole then? You've already cut even the pro-freedom voices in half.

And even if it is 50/50, should the half who want to stay in a tower be dictating the living arrangements of the other half? Why can't they just stay in the tower if they want to, and the ones who don't be free to leave? This is in fact
what ends up happening in the Trespasser epilogue with College + Circle, assuming Vivienne hasn't become a total see you next tuesday in the interim, and is likely to be the status quo when DA4 rolls around.

Thank you for again strawmanning my point. If you intend to actually discuss a better way of policing mages at some point, ill still be here. Until then, have a nice day.

[Psyren]

Thank you for again strawmanning my point. If you intend to actually discuss a better way of policing mages at some point, ill still be here. Until then, have a nice day.

I'm sorry that you think pointing out your overt misconceptions (e.g. mages go shopping rather than Tranquil on anything approaching a regular basis) about the setting is strawmanning you, but I can't stop you from feeling that way, so go in peace.


"The vote to start a massive war, which people in the game and in real life point to as a supposed justification to treat them even worse than previously, only passed by one vote. This proves half of them were happy with the status quo ante."

Something wrong with that logic. But I'm mainly posting to point out again, as I mentioned in my first post here (answering the thread-starting question, before the latest round of But They're Mages): A College and a Circle coexisting is the end of the Trespasser epilogue no matter what happened previously. In one of the more overt examples of Bioware laziness I've seen, they handwave some justification for the Circle reforming even if Leliana is Divine and you've done everything to promote mage freedom, and they handwave some justification for the College being permitted to form even if you helped Vivienne become Divine and did everything you could to grind the mages down.

See, I'm fine with that outcome though. If half of them want to rejoin the Chantry and half want to break away, and the Templars and Seekers are all but decimated, there's little anyone can practically do to stop them, whatever the Inquisitor themself may have wanted.

[Anteros]

Maybe if numerous different people in the thread are accusing you of constructing strawmen, you should actually consider that you're not accurately representing their point instead of just blindly assuming you're smarter than everyone else in the room.

No one wants to argue with you because you're being ridiculous, not because you're right and we just can't. It's not worth the effort to type out arguments when you're just going to ignore what we say and substitute some imaginary drivel that's easier for you to counter.

[Psyren]

Ignore? I've done nothing but quote your own statements (like "givng every mage a personal templar squad to go after them." (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?546398-Is-there-no-way-to-hurt-the-Templars-in-DA-O&p=22765407&viewfull=1#post22765407)) That is literally the opposite of ignoring what you're saying. If it sounds ridiculous, the problem lies with the posts being quoted, not the guy doing the quoting.

[Keltest]

Ignore? I've done nothing but quote your own statements (like "givng every mage a personal templar squad to go after them." (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?546398-Is-there-no-way-to-hurt-the-Templars-in-DA-O&p=22765407&viewfull=1#post22765407)) That is literally the opposite of ignoring what you're saying. If it sounds ridiculous, the problem lies with the posts being quoted, not the guy doing the quoting.

Ive asked you at least three times now to supply a viable alternative that allows for the policing of mages without actually keeping them rounded up like that, and you haven't even acknowledged that ive asked that question yet. The closest you've come is suggest that they deploy the Templars stationed in the circles, which both wouldn't solve the problem and displays a gross misunderstanding of how the various Templars are deployed.

[Psyren]

Ive asked you at least three times now to supply a viable alternative that allows for the policing of mages without actually keeping them rounded up like that, and you haven't even acknowledged that ive asked that question yet. The closest you've come is suggest that they deploy the Templars stationed in the circles, which both wouldn't solve the problem and displays a gross misunderstanding of how the various Templars are deployed.

And I have responded to you. Here, I'll do it again:

1) You don't know that it wouldn't solve the problem; it's never been tried. Templars and the Circle were created concurrently, with none existing independently of the other before now.

2) Enforcement would not be on the shoulders of the templars alone - the rank and file mage is just as opposed to maleficarum as anyone else. This would vastly increase the number of people in this capacity. And given that they are performing a service to the public, they would be incentivized to take up this position just like the Templars are, by being given resources to provide for their families, free training, possibility for advancement etc.

3) With mages no longer being ripped away from their families or hunted like convicts just for wanting to enjoy basic freedoms, far fewer of them would resort to the kinds of activities that would necessitate your kind enforcement to begin with. That would push the incidence of maleficarum and other malfeasance even lower than it was prior to the rebellion.

And on top of that, we have numerous examples of free mages that remain relatively well behaved - or at the very least, no more corrupt than non-magic-users get. Grey Wardens, Dalish, Nevarra, Rivain... and even Tevinter is not that bad. But no, let's reinstate the Ferelden and Orlais model that has been proven to utterly fail.

[Keltest]

And I have responded to you. Here, I'll do it again:

1) You don't know that it wouldn't solve the problem; it's never been tried. Templars and the Circle were created concurrently, with none existing independently of the other before now.

2) Enforcement would not be on the shoulders of the templars alone - the rank and file mage is just as opposed to maleficarum as anyone else. This would vastly increase the number of people in this capacity. And given that they are performing a service to the public, they would be incentivized to take up this position just like the Templars are, by being given resources to provide for their families, free training, possibility for advancement etc.

3) With mages no longer being ripped away from their families or hunted like convicts just for wanting to enjoy basic freedoms, far fewer of them would resort to the kinds of activities that would necessitate your kind enforcement to begin with. That would push the incidence of maleficarum and other malfeasance even lower than it was prior to the rebellion.

And on top of that, we have numerous examples of free mages that remain relatively well behaved - or at the very least, no more corrupt than non-magic-users get. Grey Wardens, Dalish, Nevarra, Rivain... and even Tevinter is not that bad. But no, let's reinstate the Ferelden and Orlais model that has been proven to utterly fail.

Oh, I see. Let me elaborate on the problem here: All of these are completely wrong. They have tried having the mages be free without Templar before, in Tevinter. And hey look, the mages are in charge and blood magic is common. Oops, I guess that didn't work. Two, the number of mages is vanishingly small, and you cant just recruit more of them, especially if you aren't forcing their training anymore. And since a large fraction of the mages are scholars first, not bounty hunters, that's not remotely enough to make a difference. And three, the only way to avoid removing child mages from their family for training is to just not train them at all. That's the opposite of a good idea for just, so many reasons. And if youre removing the children from their families and keeping them in the circles while they learn, hey, that's the exact scenario that youre protesting here!

As for your "free mages", the Grey Wardens are largely self policing, and have extremely shortened lifespans regardless, to say nothing of smaller numbers. And you know what? they tried to take over Ferelden once. With blood magic even. Theyre an unfortunate necessity, but lets not pretend that they haven't caused problems. The Dalish strictly limit themselves on the number of mages in a clan, exiling the remaining ones into the forest, or outright killing them if there is no room in the clan. Their enforcement methods are even harsher than the Chantry's. Nevarra's treatment of non-mortalitasi mages is generally unknown, Rivain has been flat out annulled (ie most of the mages were killed) and Tevinter really is that bad.

[Psyren]

All of these are completely wrong.

Guess again.


They have tried having the mages be free without Templar before, in Tevinter. And hey look, the mages are in charge and blood magic is common. Oops, I guess that didn't work.

"The mages are in charge" is not actually a problem. What they do with political power is what matters, not merely having it. Indeed, as mages are also highly educated (out of necessity), this might very well be a good thing, blood magic aside.

Speaking of blood magic, I agree with you that it should not be tolerated in civilized nations - but even in Tevinter, it is not the huge boogeyman you make it out to be. It is practiced, but secretively, behind closed doors, and providing incontrovertible evidence of its use is enough to get a rival punished accordingly. Indeed, not robbing mages of their liberty just for being mages is very likely to make the number who resort to blood magic go down, not up, as I have said numerous times. Kirkwall was in far worse shape due to blood magic than Tevinter could ever be.


Two, the number of mages is vanishingly small, and you cant just recruit more of them, especially if you aren't forcing their training anymore.
...
And three, the only way to avoid removing child mages from their family for training is to just not train them at all.

1) You ARE forcing their training. I have said as much repeatedly - have templars round up the teens (just as they do now) and put them through their Harrowing. It's the adults who have learned self control whose perpetual incarceration I'm objecting to.

2) The number of mages being small is irrelevant. M+T > T alone. With at least some percentage of the controlled mages joining this magical enforcement, and the number of Templars staying constant, we will all be better off.


And since a large fraction of the mages are scholars first, not bounty hunters, that's not remotely enough to make a difference.

So let me get this straight - "a large number of them are scholars" means they will be ill-suited to enforcement, but it also makes them too dangerous to be let free? Do you not see the inherent contradiction here?


As for your "free mages", the Grey Wardens are largely self policing, and have extremely shortened lifespans regardless, to say nothing of smaller numbers. And you know what? they tried to take over Ferelden once. With blood magic even. Theyre an unfortunate necessity, but lets not pretend that they haven't caused problems. The Dalish strictly limit themselves on the number of mages in a clan, exiling the remaining ones into the forest, or outright killing them if there is no room in the clan. Their enforcement methods are even harsher than the Chantry's. Nevarra's treatment of non-mortalitasi mages is generally unknown, Rivain has been flat out annulled (ie most of the mages were killed) and Tevinter really is that bad.

1) Concerning Grey Wardens - you're conflating two separate events. Sophie's rebellion had nothing to do with blood magic, she was a Warden with a claim to the throne who simply disregarded the rules that they forfeit all lands and titles on joining. The blood magic thing meanwhile was a trick by Corypheus, and an extremely singular event - which, by the way, did not just affect the mage wardens, it affected all of them.

2) Putting aside that the Dalish thing is a retcon, they don't murder them, they simply cast them out. For a woodsy people like the Dalish, not nearly the death sentence you imply.

3) We don't know much about Nevarra, sure, but we do know they do fine without Circle prisons.

4) Rivain has few mages but they still exist, outside of Circle prisons.

I covered Tevinter above.

[Lord Raziere]

how to better police mages:
1. trust the mages farther than you can throw them
2. form organization within mages that volunteers to swears an oath to never use blood magic or consort with demons with lots of pomp and flare around the oath, make it feel real important and ceremonial. (because as I have often observed, humans ascribe a lot of importance to ceremony for some reason)
3. these mages then dedicate their lives to watching their fellow magi to prevent them from using or abusing either of these things, filled with the seriousness of the oath and its ceremony-ness.
4. develop research into how possession happens and how you can prevent it. what are the patterns of possession? what is the most common cause? what measures can you take to minimize it happening? any knowledge you can find upon this subject will be helpful
5. perhaps get into research of trying to get more spirits like Justice to exist in the Fade. just a thought, maybe more diversity of spirits will help balance things out and make sure they focus on each other than humans, who knows
6. point out that templars use blood magic to track down mages with vials of blood so get off your high horse you stupid knights and admit that your using safe blood magic. perhaps better research into what blood magic is safe to use would clear things up?
7. perhaps instead of teaching all magi to use destructive spells of total destruction you have volunteers who swear an oath to only learn healing magic, so that when they get possessed the demon can't do anything with their magic because they never learned any destructive? or at least make sure more mages do something beneficial with their magic rather than just sitting around in a tower learning to blow things up.
8. SERIOUSLY, IF YOU GUYS DISTRUST MAGES SO MUCH WHY DO ALLOW THEM TO LEARN SPELLS TO BLOW THINGS UP WHILE KEEPING THEM IN CONFINED SPACES, THIS DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE.

[Joran]

7. perhaps instead of teaching all magi to use destructive spells of total destruction you have volunteers who swear an oath to only learn healing magic, so that when they get possessed the demon can't do anything with their magic because they never learned any destructive? or at least make sure more mages do something beneficial with their magic rather than just sitting around in a tower learning to blow things up.
8. SERIOUSLY, IF YOU GUYS DISTRUST MAGES SO MUCH WHY DO ALLOW THEM TO LEARN SPELLS TO BLOW THINGS UP WHILE KEEPING THEM IN CONFINED SPACES, THIS DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE.

It only makes sense in the crapsack world of Thedas. Each government/race needs mages that can cast destructive spells, so you can defend yourself against the other government/races mages with destructive spells; the first country to disarm is the first country to get invaded.

Also, occasionally, the Darkspawn will rise up and you need the mages to blow those guys up too.

[Lord Raziere]

It only makes sense in the crapsack world of Thedas. Each government/race needs mages that can cast destructive spells, so you can defend yourself against the other government/races mages with destructive spells; the first country to disarm is the first country to get invaded.

Also, occasionally, the Darkspawn will rise up and you need the mages to blow those guys up too.

Yes.

But why practice in confined spaces. Where valuable books can be destroyed. Instead of outside in some field where everyone would be safe?

[Giggling Ghast]

Because when the mages rebel or turn into abominations, you can lock the door to the confined space to keep them from getting out. Savvy?

[GolemsVoice]

Yes.

But why practice in confined spaces. Where valuable books can be destroyed. Instead of outside in some field where everyone would be safe?

Well, you HAVE to house them somewhere, and teach them somewhere, so even if you don't build a tower, you'll likely end up with a monastery or a fortified compound, so it's going to be cramped either way. Maybe not as cramped as the tower, but cramped. Even in a modern-day university, if somebody with access to fireballs etc. would go crazy, a lot of books and stuff would be destroyed.

Also, once you've gone full abomination, I don't think it actually matters what spells you knew in life. This is somewhat different for "good" spirits, since they're more likely to just hitch a ride and let you keep your body and abilities, for a while, but at some point, the spirit will replace you and your skills.

[Inarius]

Also, once you've gone full abomination, I don't think it actually matters what spells you knew in life. This is somewhat different for "good" spirits, since they're more likely to just hitch a ride and let you keep your body and abilities, for a while, but at some point, the spirit will replace you and your skills.

Interestingly enough thats not always the case. The Avvar train their mages via possession. When their training is done they perform a ritual to remove the spirit from the mage. If the ritual fails then the other mages and the friendly spirits watch the possessed mage but take no action until signs of corruption are shown. A lot of their own magic rituals also involve being temporarily possessed so it seems that possession on its own isnt nearly as dangerous as its made out to be. Avvar Spirit Warriors are also warriors who become temporarily possessed by spirits in order to work a limited form of magic.

Not saying its perfect. I mean one rogue clan did stuff a powerful spirit into a Dragon at one point, which was considered a corruption of their beliefs, in order to try to prevent Orlais from becoming Tevinter 2.0. It took a Templar and a pair of mages to handle the situation with the spirit dragon. Overall though they seem to have a fairly stable society with mages living among the populace so it is something that is achievable.

[Kish]

I think Cole had it inadvertently right when he read something Vivienne said as meaning the Circles teach mages to fear and Circle mages are uniquely vulnerable to demons. In all of Thedas, only in the Circles are mages taught that possession is so inevitable and so absolutely corrupting that they need to go through a drill that involves induced possession to get to the point where they can be trusted to the extent that they can be allowed to spend the rest of their lives under constant armed guard...and in all of Thedas, Circle-trained mages are far more likely to lose themselves to demons than mages who have any other background.

[Lord Raziere]

I think Cole had it inadvertently right when he read something Vivienne said as meaning the Circles teach mages to fear and Circle mages are uniquely vulnerable to demons. In all of Thedas, only in the Circles are mages taught that possession is so inevitable and so absolutely corrupting that they need to go through a drill that involves induced possession to get to the point where they can be trusted to the extent that they can be allowed to spend the rest of their lives under constant armed guard...and in all of Thedas, Circle-trained mages are far more likely to lose themselves to demons than mages who have any other background.

Well lets think about it:
The Fade is a place of emotions and ideas and concepts right? so its that old chestnut about self-fulfilling prophecies. you think its inevitable, so you lose confidence in ever being able to resist it, since why bother? its going to happen anyways, so why bother putting in the energy, so why bother doing anything about it, and so on and so forth in a dark spiral that leads to them being an abomination because spirits are all about that idea stuff and preying upon vulnerabilities, of taking advantage of whats in your head. no amount of physical containment is going to help with that, because the self-fulfilling prophecy of needing to be locked up comes true when they get angry and try to attack you for being locked up.

heck, most of the reasons Anders rebels against the Templars are for things the Templars are already doing, and Templars respond that they should keep doing this stuff because Anders keep doing stuff against because they keep doing the stuff. things are inevitable as they make it, and demons are ideas given form preying upon that self-created inevitability. But then again, its not surprising since neither psychology nor sociology has been invented yet in Thedas which would be the probably the best people to defeat literal ideas formed from our desires and fears and so on.

[Keltest]

Interestingly enough thats not always the case. The Avvar train their mages via possession. When their training is done they perform a ritual to remove the spirit from the mage. If the ritual fails then the other mages and the friendly spirits watch the possessed mage but take no action until signs of corruption are shown. A lot of their own magic rituals also involve being temporarily possessed so it seems that possession on its own isnt nearly as dangerous as its made out to be. Avvar Spirit Warriors are also warriors who become temporarily possessed by spirits in order to work a limited form of magic.

Not saying its perfect. I mean one rogue clan did stuff a powerful spirit into a Dragon at one point, which was considered a corruption of their beliefs, in order to try to prevent Orlais from becoming Tevinter 2.0. It took a Templar and a pair of mages to handle the situation with the spirit dragon. Overall though they seem to have a fairly stable society with mages living among the populace so it is something that is achievable.

The Avvar also seem to have stumbled upon a group of friendly spirits that are willing and able to help them in that manner though, similar to Wynn, only on a societal level. They do still get possessed by demons sometimes, or corrupt the spirit possessing them Anders-Justice style. They are a violent culture after all. But they also seem to have the luck or the skill to make friendly contact that circle mages don't.

[Inarius]

The Avvar also seem to have stumbled upon a group of friendly spirits that are willing and able to help them in that manner though, similar to Wynn, only on a societal level. They do still get possessed by demons sometimes, or corrupt the spirit possessing them Anders-Justice style. They are a violent culture after all. But they also seem to have the luck or the skill to make friendly contact that circle mages don't.

I'm not so sure its luck but rather societal. Spirits tend to reflect the beliefs of the people so the more people fear them the more likely they are to be demons. The chantry has spent hundreds of years demonizing mages and spirits in general while forbidding research into them which has led to the situation of circle mages being much weaker to possession. It is a problem, but it's something that could be solved by reintroducing mages into society and allowing a freer reign on their research into spirits like how they allowed research into blood magic to produce the Litany.

[Keltest]

I'm not so sure its luck but rather societal. Spirits tend to reflect the beliefs of the people so the more people fear them the more likely they are to be demons. The chantry has spent hundreds of years demonizing mages and spirits in general while forbidding research into them which has led to the situation of circle mages being much weaker to possession. It is a problem, but it's something that could be solved by reintroducing mages into society and allowing a freer reign on their research into spirits like how they allowed research into blood magic to produce the Litany.

Based on codex entries across the games, it isn't like they haven't tried researching spirits, its just that most spirits aren't interested in our world. A spirit is generally disinclined to possess somebody on their own initiative since they are near-definitionally benevolent, and forcibly summoning them tends to corrupt their nature. That means the only way to study them is to go into the fade itself, which is dangerous and, if you aren't Solas, resource intensive.

[Giggling Ghast]

Spirits reflect the mortal world and man's darker impulses. If there was no strife, there would be no demons. Therefore, all you need to do to make mages completely safe is to transform Thedas into a paradise with no war, prejudice, famine, slavery or monsters. Simple!

[Psyren]

I think Cole had it inadvertently right when he read something Vivienne said as meaning the Circles teach mages to fear and Circle mages are uniquely vulnerable to demons. In all of Thedas, only in the Circles are mages taught that possession is so inevitable and so absolutely corrupting that they need to go through a drill that involves induced possession to get to the point where they can be trusted to the extent that they can be allowed to spend the rest of their lives under constant armed guard...and in all of Thedas, Circle-trained mages are far more likely to lose themselves to demons than mages who have any other background.


Well lets think about it:
The Fade is a place of emotions and ideas and concepts right? so its that old chestnut about self-fulfilling prophecies. you think its inevitable, so you lose confidence in ever being able to resist it, since why bother? its going to happen anyways, so why bother putting in the energy, so why bother doing anything about it, and so on and so forth in a dark spiral that leads to them being an abomination because spirits are all about that idea stuff and preying upon vulnerabilities, of taking advantage of whats in your head. no amount of physical containment is going to help with that, because the self-fulfilling prophecy of needing to be locked up comes true when they get angry and try to attack you for being locked up.

heck, most of the reasons Anders rebels against the Templars are for things the Templars are already doing, and Templars respond that they should keep doing this stuff because Anders keep doing stuff against because they keep doing the stuff. things are inevitable as they make it, and demons are ideas given form preying upon that self-created inevitability. But then again, its not surprising since neither psychology nor sociology has been invented yet in Thedas which would be the probably the best people to defeat literal ideas formed from our desires and fears and so on.

All of these. My point exactly.

And it's not just Cole, Solas says the same thing. Obviously he's biased in the sense that in his day, EVERYONE, or at least every elven mage, was as open to the Fade as he was, and their entire society was based on it, but he was no less correct despite that. Everything to do with the Fade requires a heaping serving of Mind over Matter.

As for the social sciences appearing in Thedas, I think Dagna heralds the birthing cries of that particular movement. She's one of the few people in the setting actually asking "well, what the hell IS the Fade anyway?" with any desire for rigor.


The Avvar also seem to have stumbled upon a group of friendly spirits that are willing and able to help them in that manner though, similar to Wynn, only on a societal level. They do still get possessed by demons sometimes, or corrupt the spirit possessing them Anders-Justice style. They are a violent culture after all. But they also seem to have the luck or the skill to make friendly contact that circle mages don't.

That's the point though, it's neither "luck" nor "skill." It's education. When you think of the Fade differently, the Fade reacts to you differently. But you have to really believe it deep down, which the Circle's conditioning (and the culture of most "civilized" societies, including Ferelden/Orlais/Tevinter) makes impossible.

[Anteros]

Solas is a complete moron who has almost doomed the entire world on multiple occasions, and is wrong on almost everything he says. I don't know why you think agreeing with him strengthens your arguments.

Maybe the Fade started out as a nice place that only reacts to what is put into it, but that's not the way it is anymore. It's full of demons and other nasty things due to centuries of corruption by mortals. Simply pretending that isn't the case is only going to get you killed as well as everyone around you.

[Morty]

It's certainly true that as the series went on, the inherent danger of the Fade and magic in general have been portrayed as paranoid ravings of Templars and clerics, or a result of the Circle system. I, for one, regard it as a very unfortunate torpedoing of what could've been a pretty interesting conflict. I don't think any of the writers for the franchise really had what it took to tackle it properly, instead taking the easy way out most of the time. I do wonder what the next game will do with Tevinter. Will it turn out not to be quite so bad after all?

[Anteros]

It's certainly true that as the series went on, the inherent danger of the Fade and magic in general have been portrayed as paranoid ravings of Templars and clerics, or a result of the Circle system. I, for one, regard it as a very unfortunate torpedoing of what could've been a pretty interesting conflict. I don't think any of the writers for the franchise really had what it took to tackle it properly, instead taking the easy way out most of the time. I do wonder what the next game will do with Tevinter. Will it turn out not to be quite so bad after all?

How so? Basically every time we see someone interact with the Fade it ends in disaster. Even people who are completely naive and don't believe anything bad about magic like Merrill or little children. If Solas' theories about the Fade were actually correct then things like this wouldn't happen. He's just not willing to face the truth, or even entertain the idea that he might be wrong. Even when your own character interacts with it you end up having to deal with dozens of demons.

[Keltest]

How so? Basically every time we see someone interact with the Fade it ends in disaster. Even people who are completely naive and don't believe anything bad about magic like Merrill or little children. If Solas' theories about the Fade were actually correct then things like this wouldn't happen. He's just not willing to face the truth, or even entertain the idea that he might be wrong. Even when your own character interacts with it you end up having to deal with dozens of demons.

Indeed. Its rather telling that any time a character points out "hey, messing with the Fade is super dangerous!" they lose points with Solas even if they are completely correct.

Take Cole for example. As much as it pains me to agree with Vivienne, she is absolutely correct that Cole is a complete unknown coming from a dimension known for its tricks and non-realities. Its safe to side with him because he is, after all, a companion in a Bioware game, but Solas is vehemently opposed to the idea that working with him is probably not the wisest thing you could do.

[Kish]

It's certainly true that as the series went on, the inherent danger of the Fade and magic in general have been portrayed as paranoid ravings of Templars and clerics, or a result of the Circle system. I, for one, regard it as a very unfortunate torpedoing of what could've been a pretty interesting conflict.
I agree with the factual statements here but couldn't disagree more with the "unfortunate" part. There's no way to write "people of this group really do need to be imprisoned from birth because, see, they're dangerous!" that wasn't going to be horrendous; the more Bioware backs off from trying to create "moral ambiguity" there, the better.

It is unfortunately rather likely that a game set in Tevinter will continue Dorian's ham-handed "sure, it's sort of bad, but it's not so bad that supporting it makes someone a bad person"-style slavery apologism. (Slavery, in the form practiced in the Circles or in any other, is something that I wholeheartedly believe only works presented as an unambiguous wrong; there's no such thing as a competent job of making it morally ambiguous because a competent writer would know better than to try.)

[Ronnoc]

How so? Basically every time we see someone interact with the Fade it ends in disaster. Even people who are completely naive and don't believe anything bad about magic like Merrill or little children. If Solas' theories about the Fade were actually correct then things like this wouldn't happen. He's just not willing to face the truth, or even entertain the idea that he might be wrong. Even when your own character interacts with it you end up having to deal with dozens of demons.

Um I think you've missed Merrill's attitude on the fade. Merrill is a pragmatist with respect to the fade and believes it is inherently dangerous as seen in lines like "Anders... There's no such thing as a good spirit. There never was" and, "All spirits are dangerous. I understood that. I'm sorry that you didn't" She just believes that the benefits of regaining Dalish history are worth the risk of her probable death. When she went for her final confrontation with Audacity she arranged for a team of expert abomination slayers (i.e. your party) to put her down immediately if she failed. The point of her story isn't that she's an idiot who blindly trusts the Fade. It's that she decided something (dalish history) was more important than her life, and that those closest to her refused to let her make that choice.

[Morty]

To go off on a note separate to what I said last, one of my favourite portrayals of magic in the series, and one where I think it actually works, is that of gradual temptation. Merrill's story actually plays into this. Many people will have something so important to them that they'll go to any lengths to achieve it. And if you're a mage, that might mean blood magic, demon summoning and other dangerous forms of magic won't seem like such a bad idea anymore.

For Merrill, it was restoring the Eluvian. For the (DA:I spoilers ahead, I suppose) Grey Wardens in Inquisition, it was stopping the Blights. Halward Pavus was as good a man as a Magister can get, and rejected blood magic. But when Dorian's homosexuality threatened his dynastic plans, he was willing to resort to it to rewire his brain. Accepting the possibility that it might just lobotomise Dorian, too. Of course, a Fereldan or Orlesian noble might feel the same temptation, but the difference is that to them, blood magic isn't going to be readily available. So they have to find a blood mage and risk the Templars coming down on them both like a ton of bricks. Either way, there's always something that a mage can get if they just have a bit more power.

And I do wonder how they'll handle a land where mages are actually in charge. I do wish we'd get more stories about societal tensions between "supers" and "non-supers" (whether they're mages, mutants, benders or whatever) that don't circle around "the masses oppress the supers".

On another largely unrelated tangent, one of my favourite DA:I moments is the resolution of a war table operation where you send help to Maevaris Tilani, a Magister whose views align with Dorian's and who catches heat for calling for reforms. Cullen's solution is to send her actual Templars, who unlike those in Tevinter take lyrium and deny magic. The other Magisters have no idea how to deal with that and get their asses soundly kicked. I wish we'd got more of that.

[Anteros]

Um I think you've missed Merrill's attitude on the fade. Merrill is a pragmatist with respect to the fade and believes it is inherently dangerous as seen in lines like "Anders... There's no such thing as a good spirit. There never was" and, "All spirits are dangerous. I understood that. I'm sorry that you didn't" She just believes that the benefits of regaining Dalish history are worth the risk of her probable death. When she went for her final confrontation with Audacity she arranged for a team of expert abomination slayers (i.e. your party) to put her down immediately if she failed. The point of her story isn't that she's an idiot who blindly trusts the Fade. It's that she decided something (dalish history) was more important than her life, and that those closest to her refused to let her make that choice.

For someone as aware and pragmatic as you're describing, she sure seems awfully surprised when she gets her entire clan killed.

It is entirely possible I've forgotten parts of her character though. It's been a while since I've played the game, and she wasn't particularly memorable anyway. More annoying than anything.

[Psyren]

Solas is a complete moron who has almost doomed the entire world on multiple occasions, and is wrong on almost everything he says. I don't know why you think agreeing with him strengthens your arguments.

Even if this were anything but ad hominem, you're still flat wrong. Corypheus without the orb/marker would still have been an extinction-level immortal threat for Thedas, and Solas was the only one who saw him coming. Furthermore, nothing about Solas' actions make him wrong about how utterly idiotic, morally bankrupt, and ineffectual the Circle system is. So please, try to debate actual points instead of attacking his character and thinking that's a rebuttal every single time.



Maybe the Fade started out as a nice place that only reacts to what is put into it, but that's not the way it is anymore. It's full of demons and other nasty things due to centuries of corruption by mortals. Simply pretending that isn't the case is only going to get you killed as well as everyone around you.

The fact that so many other nations without the Ferelden/Orlais/Marches Circle model don't have nearly the same incidence of abomination problems shows your arguments for the sham they are.


I agree with the factual statements here but couldn't disagree more with the "unfortunate" part. There's no way to write "people of this group really do need to be imprisoned from birth because, see, they're dangerous!" that wasn't going to be horrendous; the more Bioware backs off from trying to create "moral ambiguity" there, the better.

It is unfortunately rather likely that a game set in Tevinter will continue Dorian's ham-handed "sure, it's sort of bad, but it's not so bad that supporting it makes someone a bad person"-style slavery apologism. (Slavery, in the form practiced in the Circles or in any other, is something that I wholeheartedly believe only works presented as an unambiguous wrong; there's no such thing as a competent job of making it morally ambiguous because a competent writer would know better than to try.)

Agreed with you again. Personally my hope is that Dorian's incremental style of change via the Lucerni extends to reforming all of Tevinter's nastier practices, not just weeding out the blood mages in the Magisterium. It's almost certain that elf rights will be a focus of the sequel, and Tevinter's slavery is inextricably tied to that.

[Keltest]

For someone as aware and pragmatic as you're describing, she sure seems awfully surprised when she gets her entire clan killed.

It is entirely possible I've forgotten parts of her character though. It's been a while since I've played the game, and she wasn't particularly memorable anyway. More annoying than anything.

IIRC, that only happens when you, the player, do something dumb and initiate a confrontation with the clan.

[Anteros]

Even if this were anything but ad hominem, you're still flat wrong. Corypheus without the orb/marker would still have been an extinction-level immortal threat for Thedas, and Solas was the only one who saw him coming. Furthermore, nothing about Solas' actions make him wrong about how utterly idiotic, morally bankrupt, and ineffectual the Circle system is. So please, try to debate actual points instead of attacking his character and thinking that's a rebuttal every single time.


I'm getting accused of ad hominem attacks against a fictional character. That's a new one. It's really hard to take you seriously right now.

Back to the point...pointing out that a character is biased and very often wrong is perfectly legitimate if you're going to cite him as an expert. Maybe you should actually support your arguments instead of just relying on "Solas says" when Solas has already proven himself extremely unreliable and biased. If you're not going to bother actually supporting your arguments beyond a weak "this character agrees with me" then don't expect people to deconstruct them in any more detail.

You also keep moving the goal posts of this conversation. No one has ever said that the Circle system couldn't use reform. You keep trying to compare any comment in favor of oversight as if it's completely in favor of the entire system, as well as drawing absurd comparisons between the Circle system and concentration camps like Auschwitz.

Frankly, a lot of your arguments aren't even worth debating because they're just so absurd.



The fact that so many other nations without the Ferelden/Orlais/Marches Circle model don't have nearly the same incidence of abomination problems shows your arguments for the sham they are.


Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever outside of your imagination? I don't see how you possibly could.

[Psyren]

I'm getting accused of ad hominem attacks against a fictional character. That's a new one. It's really hard to take you seriously right now.

Whether they are fictional is irrelevant - any argument that relies on your subject's character rather than their assertions qualifies. When Solas points out that the Circle system is doomed to failure and cites reasons why, bringing up his personal flaws has nothing to do with defending the Circle model and it is thus a failing of logic on your part.


Back to the point...pointing out that a character is biased and very often wrong is perfectly legitimate if you're going to cite him as an expert.

A character being wrong about one subject (e.g. the attitudes of non-elves) does not make them wrong about a different subject (the viability of the Circle.) This is yet another logical fallacy on your part.



You also keep moving the goal posts of this conversation. No one has ever said that the Circle system couldn't use reform. You keep trying to compare any comment in favor of oversight as if it's completely in favor of the entire system, as well as drawing absurd comparisons between the Circle system and concentration camps like Auschwitz.

There is no amount of "reform" you could propose that ends with "but keep them imprisoned for life without trial" that I will ever support. Clear enough for you? Should I add it to my sig?

[Giggling Ghast]

It's certainly true that as the series went on, the inherent danger of the Fade and magic in general have been portrayed as paranoid ravings of Templars and clerics, or a result of the Circle system. I, for one, regard it as a very unfortunate torpedoing of what could've been a pretty interesting conflict. I don't think any of the writers for the franchise really had what it took to tackle it properly, instead taking the easy way out most of the time.

I don't really agree, and I would offer this thread and countless others as evidence of my argument. Modern audiences are already primed to root for the 'oppressed underdog,' so if the mages were obviously in the right and the Chantry/Templars were obviously in the wrong, there wouldn't be anyone trying to defend the latter beyond a few irrational trolls.

Although the Chantry plays a role in creating a fearful perception of the Fade, they didn't create the conditions that led to the existence of demons. At one point, spirits could enter the world freely, but the Veil closed them off from the physical world and created a longing among spirits to join the living. And we know definitively that demons existed during the reign of the Tevinter Imperium, because they employed demons to terrorize the populace. That can't be blamed on the Chantry, which arose from one woman's efforts to oppose Tevinter's tyranny.

[Psyren]

No one's blaming the Chantry for initially making the Fade dangerous. But what they're doing ultimately isn't helping the situation. Giving rank and file muggles the ability to battle bad mages is a good thing; reinforcing a culture of fear and oppression around literally everything to do with magic and the Fade is not.

I was accused earlier of not providing evidence of cultures outside the standard Chantry (Ferelden, Orlais, and Marches) have the same incidence of issues, but we see it constantly in the games and lore. Avvar literally take spirits into themselves or consult with them quite frequently. Rivaini, Dalish and Nevarrans operate without Circles just fine. Even modern Tevinter, where mages can stroll down the street unaccosted, does not appear to have abominations running around everywhere from all evidence we have been given. If the common folk actually saw mages routinely (helpful ones using their powers for good), and if apostates themselves were not under constant mental strain to hide who they are or else face lifelong incarceration, the Fade would reflect that, and possessions would be as low in the Free Marches as they are in Tevinter today.

[Keltest]

No one's blaming the Chantry for initially making the Fade dangerous. But what they're doing ultimately isn't helping the situation. Giving rank and file muggles the ability to battle bad mages is a good thing; reinforcing a culture of fear and oppression around literally everything to do with magic and the Fade is not.

I was accused earlier of not providing evidence of cultures outside the standard Chantry (Ferelden, Orlais, and Marches) have the same incidence of issues, but we see it constantly in the games and lore. Avvar literally take spirits into themselves or consult with them quite frequently. Rivaini, Dalish and Nevarrans operate without Circles just fine. Even modern Tevinter, where mages can stroll down the street unaccosted, does not appear to have abominations running around everywhere from all evidence we have been given. If the common folk actually saw mages routinely (helpful ones using their powers for good), and if apostates themselves were not under constant mental strain to hide who they are or else face lifelong incarceration, the Fade would reflect that, and possessions would be as low in the Free Marches as they are in Tevinter today.

Why do you keep going back to the abomination thing? Abominations are only a fraction of the reason for the circle system, and you have yet to address the fact that mages, when left to their own devices, have pretty invariably caused tragedy and horror, without being possessed. The ancient elven empire was ruled by mage-gods, tevinter is rife with abuse of magic, the Avvar created a crazy demon-dragon. Merril in DA2 gets her keeper killed because she cant let obviously bad things lie. The Grey Wardens tore open a hole in the veil at Watcher's Keep, to say nothing of their mass blood magic ritual plan. Solas has decided that the world should be ended and rebooted. And even on the small scale, there are a million stories of a mage burning down a building or a village, or unleashing some monster or other, or destroying a chunk of the landscape, not out of malice, but just on accident. Mages are freaking dangerous, and they are walking around with weapons of mass destruction at all times, even without the risk of becoming an abomination out of nowhere.

I don't like the idea of keeping them all under house arrest in their university, but any other alternative solution has to deal with the fact that mages are a lit torch in a room full of dynamite, and the only alternatives presented that actually address that are the Dalish solution, which is to kill any mages more than they strictly need, or the Qunari solution of keeping them utterly and completely bound and enthralled, neither of which I would say is an improvement.

[Psyren]

Why do you keep going back to the abomination thing? Abominations are only a fraction of the reason for the circle system, and you have yet to address the fact that mages, when left to their own devices, have pretty invariably caused tragedy and horror, without being possessed. The ancient elven empire was ruled by mage-gods, tevinter is rife with abuse of magic, the Avvar created a crazy demon-dragon. Merril in DA2 gets her keeper killed because she cant let obviously bad things lie. The Grey Wardens tore open a hole in the veil at Watcher's Keep, to say nothing of their mass blood magic ritual plan. Solas has decided that the world should be ended and rebooted. And even on the small scale, there are a million stories of a mage burning down a building or a village, or unleashing some monster or other, or destroying a chunk of the landscape, not out of malice, but just on accident. Mages are freaking dangerous, and they are walking around with weapons of mass destruction at all times, even without the risk of becoming an abomination out of nowhere.

I have addressed this numerous times: we do need Templars - people with the ability to keep mages in check without being mages themselves. None of the examples you cited here have tried using Templars/Seekers without using the Circle too. The ancient elves didn't try it, the Avvar didn't try it, the Dalish didn't try it, and the Grey Wardens didn't either. (And FYI, the Grey Warden thing was an extremely singular circumstance, not the inevitable slide to corruption you're portraying it as.)

Modern Tevinter does have Templars, and while it's not perfect, it is so far the best example we have of a functioning society that doesn't rely on either a laissez-faire attitude to magic or mass incarceration with nothing in between. Improving that is the reform I will accept. If you still reject it, there is nothing else for us to discuss.

[Anteros]

Whether they are fictional is irrelevant - any argument that relies on your subject's character rather than their assertions qualifies. When Solas points out that the Circle system is doomed to failure and cites reasons why, bringing up his personal flaws has nothing to do with defending the Circle model and it is thus a failing of logic on your part.


His personal flaws are relevant because you're citing his opinion as if it's evidence without actually supporting the arguments he's making. It's not an ad hominem attack to point out that your "expert" is actually a moron. If you called an expert on forensics into a court room to testify about a case, your opposition would be perfectly justified in pointing out that he's pretty much wrong about everything he has ever done.

I could just as easily point at characters who think the Circle system is a good idea and call it "evidence". For every character you want to use who has the opinion that the Circle is awful, there's another who supports it.

Maybe if you'd stop basing your arguments entirely on appeals to emotion and buzz words and provided some substance to them then there would be more to debate.




A character being wrong about one subject (e.g. the attitudes of non-elves) does not make them wrong about a different subject (the viability of the Circle.) This is yet another logical fallacy on your part.


He's wrong on a lot more than one subject. He's wrong on almost everything he ever says, including most of his opinions on the circle. He is objectively wrong about his opinions on the Fade, which relate to this conversation very closely.



There is no amount of "reform" you could propose that ends with "but keep them imprisoned for life without trial" that I will ever support. Clear enough for you? Should I add it to my sig?

No one in this thread has even suggested that except the imaginary straw men you've been arguing against.

You don't think that just maybe when people are saying that the system needs reform they might be including the most oppressive parts of that system in their planned reforms? You're just completely ignoring that because it's inconvenient to your argument.



Modern Tevinter does have Templars, and while it's not perfect, it is so far the best example we have of a functioning society that doesn't rely on either a laissez-faire attitude to magic or mass incarceration with nothing in between. Improving that is the reform I will accept. If you still reject it, there is nothing else for us to discuss.

Except Tevinter's Templars have no powers and don't even police the mages. It's nothing but a dog and pony show to give the appearance that they care. The fact that you keep referencing a the most dystopian society in the entire setting as your example of what the system should be is very telling. Tevinter might be a nice place to live if you're a mage, but if you're not then all you've got to look forward to is blood magic sacrifices and slavery.

[Psyren]

Maybe if you'd stop basing your arguments entirely on appeals to emotion and buzz words and provided some substance to them then there would be more to debate.

The irony is seriously mind-blowing.



No one in this thread has even suggested that except the imaginary straw men you've been arguing against.

You don't think that just maybe when people are saying that the system needs reform they might be including the most oppressive parts of that system in their planned reforms? You're just completely ignoring that because it's inconvenient to your argument.

Fine then - I've clearly described what reform would look like to me. Can you do the same?

[Keltest]

Fine then - I've clearly described what reform would look like to me. Can you do the same?

No, you really haven't. You've said several things you wouldn't do, but haven't actually described even the fundamentals of a new system.

[Anteros]

The irony is seriously mind-blowing.

How many times in this thread have you been accused of straw manning people's arguments, or outright ignoring them now? By different people. You can't seriously think you have the high ground there.



Fine then - I've clearly described what reform would look like to me. Can you do the same?

Sure. Basically the same system now where people are taken in, educated, taught to control their powers. If they prove themselves competent and reliable, then they are allowed a measure of freedom. People like Wynne or Vivienne would basically be released on their own cognizance. Have them check in periodically with the Templars to prove they aren't being corrupted. Maybe send Templars with them on dangerous missions, or with mages who aren't fully trusted to be on their own. People like Solas or Anders would be watched very closely.

If they can't prove they're not a danger to everyone around them? Tough luck, but you can choose to either be disconnected from magic entirely, or stay in areas with oversight. It's not a perfect solution for the mages, but it's the best you can do when one careless idiot in the setting can end all life.

[Psyren]

How many times in this thread have you been accused of straw manning people's arguments, or outright ignoring them now? By different people. You can't seriously think you have the high ground there.

When all you have are fallacies (like the argumentum ad populum used right here, and your multiple previous ones) then I have no reason not to.


If they prove themselves competent and reliable, then they are allowed a measure of freedom.


People like Wynne or Vivienne would basically be released on their own cognizance. Have them check in periodically with the Templars to prove they aren't being corrupted. Maybe send Templars with them on dangerous missions, or with mages who aren't fully trusted to be on their own. People like Solas or Anders would be watched very closely.

If they can't prove they're not a danger to everyone around them? Tough luck, but you can choose to either be disconnected from magic entirely, or stay in areas with oversight. It's not a perfect solution for the mages, but it's the best you can do when one careless idiot in the setting can end all life.

Bold are the parts that are far too vague for serious debate. "A measure of freedom?" "People like Wynne?'" Exactly how much freedom do they deserve, and what qualities would qualify one for it? Can they practice magic openly? Can they hold official titles and lands? Live in the mountains? Leave the country? Join the army? Get married?

I like the idea of a periodic check-up, but I dislike the way you've framed it - having to prove they are innocent, and be seen as guilty until they do. You've also said far less about the role of the Templars and Seekers in this society than I have; I view them as having a much more active role, not just with rounding up scared teenagers like they do now, but also as the backbone of a magical crimes enforcement unit, which again would recruit specialized mages into its ranks.


No, you really haven't. You've said several things you wouldn't do, but haven't actually described even the fundamentals of a new system.

See paragraph above, which should be nothing new if you've actually been reading my previous posts. I'll quote them if you like, even the part where I suggested the Litany of Adralla to take a role in public affairs in lieu of less obstrusive protections.

[Kish]

Not to mention the dishonesty inherent in framing the Rite of Tranquility as "be disconnected from magic entirely," as though it just turned you into a non-mage.

Anteros, I gather that you feel you're being very honest and polite here, but expecting the people you're arguing with to agree simply because you believe it so strongly is goofy.

[Anteros]

When all you have are fallacies (like the argumentum ad populum used right here, and your multiple previous ones) then I have no reason not to.





Bold are the parts that are far too vague for serious debate. "A measure of freedom?" "People like Wynne?'" Exactly how much freedom do they deserve, and what qualities would qualify one for it? Can they practice magic openly? Can they hold official titles and lands? Live in the mountains? Leave the country? Join the army? Get married?

I like the idea of a periodic check-up, but I dislike the way you've framed it - having to prove they are innocent, and be seen as guilty until they do. You've also said far less about the role of the Templars and Seekers in this society than I have; I view them as having a much more active role, not just with rounding up scared teenagers like they do now, but also as the backbone of a magical crimes enforcement unit, which again would recruit specialized mages into its ranks.



See paragraph above, which should be nothing new if you've actually been reading my previous posts. I'll quote them if you like, even the part where I suggested the Litany of Adralla to take a role in public affairs in lieu of less obstrusive protections.

I've actually made plenty of points and arguments. Specifically about the nature of the Fade, magic as a whole in the setting, and Tevinter. You've just literally ignored every single one that you felt was inconvenient to your position. You keep wanting to accuse me of fallacies but you've done nothing except appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, construct straw men, and make ridiculous comparisons to real world political regimes that aren't even worth responding to. This is beside the fact that even if I wanted to take the time to counter your more absurd arguments that it would be against forum rules to do so.


Not to mention the dishonesty inherent in framing the Rite of Tranquility as "be disconnected from magic entirely," as though it just turned you into a non-mage.

Anteros, I gather that you feel you're being very honest and polite here, but expecting the people you're arguing with to agree simply because you believe it so strongly is goofy.

I'll admit that the phrasing here could be seen as dishonest, but I honestly couldn't remember if there was a non-tranquilizing way to do it as of DAI. I recall it being a bit ambiguous if the ritual Cassandra goes through could be used to protect mages as well.

I'm not particularly trying to be polite, but then again I don't think Psyren is either, and I'm not in the habit of being overly polite to people as they're rude to others.

I also don't expect people to agree just because I believe it strongly, but when someone makes completely outlandish comparisons such as comparing the Circle to actual Nazi death camps, you can't expect me to take it seriously. If someone wants to hold that opinion, that's their prerogative, but I can't be bothered to actually debate it beyond letting them know I think they're being ridiculous.

[Psyren]

I've actually made plenty of points and arguments. Specifically about the nature of the Fade, magic as a whole in the setting, and Tevinter. You've just literally ignored every single one that you felt was inconvenient to your position.

No, I've responded to every single one. By all means, repeat any that you feel I ignored and I'll happily do so again, just for you.

Nor have you answered literally any of the rebuttals I just made.



I'm not particularly trying to be polite, but then again I don't think Psyren is either, and I'm not in the habit of being overly polite to people as they're rude to others.

Please, you never were where I'm concerned. No need to bother starting now just because you got called on it.

[Winthur]

I applaud you guys for giving this universe more thought than Bioware ever did.

[Lord Raziere]

I applaud you guys for giving this universe more thought than Bioware ever did.

And they gave a lot of thought into it, given how many plotlines and entire games were based on these things work. though to be fair, Dragon Age is intentionally ambiguous about the issues discussed and seemed to want people to explore it themselves to come up with their own solutions rather than saying anything definitive about whats right or wrong.

[Morty]

Modern Tevinter does have Templars, and while it's not perfect, it is so far the best example we have of a functioning society that doesn't rely on either a laissez-faire attitude to magic or mass incarceration with nothing in between. Improving that is the reform I will accept. If you still reject it, there is nothing else for us to discuss.

Tevinter Templars don't take lyrium and by Fenris' and Dorian's accounts, mostly grab whatever mages are unfortunate enough to get on a Magister's bad side. I get the point you're trying to make, but using Tevinter as a positive example of a magic-using society is kind of a sketchy position.


I applaud you guys for giving this universe more thought than Bioware ever did.

Related to that, I'm pretty sure that the actual reason places like Tevinter, Nevarra or Rivain don't see as many abominations as Ferelden, Orlais and Kirkwall is because none of those places have been visited by a protagonist who needs a steady supply of gribblies to kill. So the same reason why Ferelden and Kirkwall both have a population of bandits and slavers that seems to exceed that of law-abiding people.

[Giggling Ghast]

I feel like I achieved a fairly happy and equitable solution for mages and Templars by allying with the latter, making Cassandra the Divine, convincing her to rebuild the Seekers and helping Cullen kick his addiction.

-The more rabid “freedom at all costs” mages are dead
-Many Templars who didn’t take red lyrium follow in Cullen’s footsteps
-Cassandra creates a new self-governing Circle
-The Seekers are re-dedicated to protecting the innocent
-Many formerly-addicted Templars join the Seekers
-According to Mother Giselle, Cassandra has restored people’s faith in the Chantry

The only real wrinkle is the rival College of Enchanters set up by the Inquisition’s mages.

[Winthur]

And they gave a lot of thought into it, given how many plotlines and entire games were based on these things work. though to be fair, Dragon Age is intentionally ambiguous about the issues discussed and seemed to want people to explore it themselves to come up with their own solutions rather than saying anything definitive about whats right or wrong.

I honestly think Dragon Age's universe is a case of too many cooks in the kitchen. It's internally inconsistent.

Like the case of the way the Qun'ari are represented by Sten and Iron Bull in two different games.

[Keltest]

I honestly think Dragon Age's universe is a case of too many cooks in the kitchen. It's internally inconsistent.

Like the case of the way the Qun'ari are represented by Sten and Iron Bull in two different games.

Its not inconsistent though? As Sten says, the Qunari cant be summed up in a couple of sentences. Sten is a soldier, Iron Bull is a spy. Of course theyre not going to act the same.

And if you mean physically, that was a game engine thing. They wanted Sten to be able to wear helmets, so they didn't give him any horns. For Inquisition, they just gave them Qunari specific helm pieces.

[Kish]

Like the case of the way the Qun'ari are represented by Sten and Iron Bull in two different games.
No apostrophe, but other than that, where are you saying they contradict each other?

("One of them has a sense of humor and at worst wavering dedication to the Qun, the other is a humorless fanatic" is not an internal contradiction.)

[Morty]

Dragon Age universe is pretty internally inconsistent as a result of different writers and approaches, but the Qunari aren't really a good example. Sten tells us in Origins that the Qunari are very strongly moulded by their role and that the Warden and their companions shouldn't make assumptions about them through his example.

That being said, Origins' codex also mentions Qunari being "steel-clad", whereas in DA2 and Inquisition they go to battle bare-chested, with vitaar replacing armour. Not that I complain, since it's part of the series acquiring its own aesthetic, as opposed to Origins' bland grey-and-brown D&D/ASoIaF mashup. One could argue if Ben-Hassrath agents fighting us in Trespasser contradict Sten's objections to Leliana and Wynne in Origins.

[Keltest]

Dragon Age universe is pretty internally inconsistent as a result of different writers and approaches, but the Qunari aren't really a good example. Sten tells us in Origins that the Qunari are very strongly moulded by their role and that the Warden and their companions shouldn't make assumptions about them through his example.

That being said, Origins' codex also mentions Qunari being "steel-clad", whereas in DA2 and Inquisition they go to battle bare-chested, with vitaar replacing armour. Not that I complain, since it's part of the series acquiring its own aesthetic, as opposed to Origins' bland grey-and-brown D&D/ASoIaF mashup. One could argue if Ben-Hassrath agents fighting us in Trespasser contradict Sten's objections to Leliana and Wynne in Origins.

We see from Iron Bull that they do sometimes wear fully covering armor, they just presumably don't waste the resources on it when they aren't marching in open warfare. As Iron Bull says, he can get a non-button shirt on around his horns, its just a time consuming process, so he doesn't do it casually. Presumably, a similar principal applies to armor.

[Winthur]

I do not feel obliged to believe that the caste system embraced by the Qunari and explored with Sten's character could produce a character such as the Bull. He looks and carries himself in an extremely jarring way that seems like a complete subversion of the quirky race that Qunari were. If we assume Iron Bull is an outcast from his own society or somehow entirely beyond their rigid society, then there's not really all that much to him other than "funny tall bisexual man". DA:I doesn't really explore that too well in my opinion, and I've seen plenty of resentment towards the Qunari representation in that game elsewhere as well.

His "wavering dedication to the qun" is also itself in contrast to how he makes it a point out of singling a Qunari Inquisitor out as a Tal Vashoth and making broad assumptions out of that.

Ofc, it might just be my personal dislike of the dude that's clouding my argument. Still, I *do* believe you guys thought of this stuff more than Bioware did. :smalltongue:

[Kish]

I've seen lots of "resentment toward the qunari representation" since Trespasser came out--all consisting of, "Gah, you mean their culture is actually just as evil as the sten painted them, and all my efforts at diplomacy are wasted because their plan to conquer all of Thedas was never up for negotiation?"

But as Psyren recently pointed out to Anteros, "Lots of people are saying this" does not actually mean "this is a valid criticism."


If we assume Iron Bull is an outcast from his own society or somehow entirely beyond their rigid society
Just specifying that no "we" that includes me is assuming anything like that.

[Giggling Ghast]

That being said, Origins' codex also mentions Qunari being "steel-clad", whereas in DA2 and Inquisition they go to battle bare-chested, with vitaar replacing armour.

Hold up, dawg. Yes, the codex on Par Vollen: The Occupied North mentions the qunari wearing 'glittering steel armour.' And yes, in later games they instead wear Vitaar, which hardens the qunari's skin and bestows other properties.

However, as Iron Bull later clarifies, the qunari still do wear armour; they just don't put it on unless they're going to war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGXKbU_RHOg

This is backed up by the Trespasser ending slides, where the qunari are seen putting on armour as they march to war with the Imperium.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XGvs5kJFNeo/maxresdefault.jpg

As to why that cultural oddity exists, they probably have difficulty putting on armour due to their horns. Also, it's totally in keeping with the Qunari to value steel more than individual lives.

[Anteros]

No, I've responded to every single one. By all means, repeat any that you feel I ignored and I'll happily do so again, just for you.


This is simply an outright lie. I'm not going through the work of trawling through the entire conversation to compile a list of the multiple things you've ignored or misrepresented. That's a lot of work to put in for the sake of someone who I don't trust to not simply ignore the points, or misrepresent them again. The posts are all there already if you actually cared about it.



Please, you never were where I'm concerned. No need to bother starting now just because you got called on it.

You were already being rude when I joined the conversation, so I responded in a similar tone. If you're going to be sensitive about it perhaps you should treat others respectfully in the first place. Unless calling people who disagree with you "delusional" and mocking their opinions is polite where you come from? I have very little patience for people who treat others disrespectfully and then try to turn around and cry when someone responds in kind.



But as Psyren recently pointed out to Anteros, "Lots of people are saying this" does not actually mean "this is a valid criticism."


Not in itself, but usually if you find yourself disagreeing with everyone else it's a pretty good sign that you might want to at least re-evaluate your position and consider why it's so unpopular. I know this is the internet, and everyone loves to act like they're the smartest person in the room, who can simply dismissed the uneducated opinions of the unwashed masses...but that's rarely the case in reality. We're all wrong sometimes. Or in my case frequently.

[Psyren]

This is simply an outright lie. I'm not going through the work of trawling through the entire conversation to compile a list of the multiple things you've ignored or misrepresented.

"You're a liar, but when asked for specific examples of it, I'm just going to repeat that you're a liar. Nyah nyah."

Yeah, not going to waste my time engaging you further.



But as Psyren recently pointed out to Anteros, "Lots of people are saying this" does not actually mean "this is a valid criticism."

Especially when your sample size is a couple of people in a random forum thread.


I feel like I achieved a fairly happy and equitable solution for mages and Templars by allying with the latter, making Cassandra the Divine, convincing her to rebuild the Seekers and helping Cullen kick his addiction.

-The more rabid “freedom at all costs” mages are dead
-Many Templars who didn’t take red lyrium follow in Cullen’s footsteps
-Cassandra creates a new self-governing Circle
-The Seekers are re-dedicated to protecting the innocent
-Many formerly-addicted Templars join the Seekers
-According to Mother Giselle, Cassandra has restored people’s faith in the Chantry

The only real wrinkle is the rival College of Enchanters set up by the Inquisition’s mages.

Where we differ is that I see such a "wrinkle" as an inevitability. But I'd be open to seeing details of Cassandra's Circle in future titles.

Knowing Bioware though, they're probably going to "beads on a string" and you'll end up with a Circle and College no matter who you chose as Divine, whether the mages were conscripts or allies, etc., with some dialogue and specific characters changing places depending on those choices. Kind of like how they've set it up such that the only Iron Bull that we'll ever run into in the sequel is one that left the Qun behind - makes him much easier to write.

Speaking of the Qunari - they're not all bad. If/When Iron Bull defects, Cole is able to read his "Tama's" relief from miles away - "He got away, he got away." (Of course, that vision is accompanied by apparent plans to crack down on Ben-Hassrath training even harder to make sure there is never a repeat, but that's one more problem we can solve when the time comes to take the fight to the Qun themselves.)

[Kish]

Knowing Bioware though, they're probably going to "beads on a string" and you'll end up with a Circle and College no matter who you chose as Divine, whether the mages were conscripts or allies, etc., with some dialogue and specific characters changing places depending on those choices.
That is the way they're doing it; I've only seen one specific Trespasser epilogue personally, but I've seen all of the files. If Vivienne is Divine, she doesn't oppose the formation of the College as a show of her regard for the Inquisition. If Leliana is Divine, with the Inquisitor no longer as powerful a protector of the mages, Vivienne is able to play on the fears of some mages to convince them to reform the Circle with her as its Grand Enchanter; Leliana only ever backs the College directly, but she's obviously not going to tell the mages they're not allowed to form a more restricted organization if they choose to. And Cassandra offers neither enough fear to delay the College forming nor enough support to delay the Circle re-forming--even if, as in Giggling Ghast's game, the game has to handwave where the College mages come from because the PC has killed as many mages as possible.

[Morty]

I'm not sure if pinning this on BioWare is fair. Do we know of a game series that does let the player make sweeping decisions and then properly reflects them in further instalments? The Witcher series is big on choices and consequences, but none of them really matter beyond their own game. Like in Witcher 2, whether or not you supported either side or stayed neutral doesn't come up, and the love triangle defaults to Triss. In Witcher 3, whether you went with Roche or Iorveth likewise doesn't matter, since either way Roche is friendly to Geralt and Iorveth is nowhere to be seen.

[Kish]

Mass Effect comes to mind. Your decisions in Mass Effect 1 and 2 greatly affect 1) the epilogue of the entire trilogy, and 2) the decisions you're offered in Mass Effect 3. (I am actively and deliberately ignoring Andromeda here, no one needs to point that out.)

But frankly, even if every game series did the same thing, it would still be a legitimate criticism of Dragon Age; it would just also be a legitimate criticism of 1) each individual game series and 2) the game industry.

[Psyren]

I'm not sure if pinning this on BioWare is fair. Do we know of a game series that does let the player make sweeping decisions and then properly reflects them in further instalments? The Witcher series is big on choices and consequences, but none of them really matter beyond their own game. Like in Witcher 2, whether or not you supported either side or stayed neutral doesn't come up, and the love triangle defaults to Triss. In Witcher 3, whether you went with Roche or Iorveth likewise doesn't matter, since either way Roche is friendly to Geralt and Iorveth is nowhere to be seen.

My intent was not to blame Bioware at all; indeed, I'm totally fine with that kind of "compromise status quo" being used as a starting point for sequels. It's the only way to keep the content manageable. I'm just pointing out that, no matter how we all feel about mages and templars and circles and colleges, that all 4 are likely to be things in the next game.


Mass Effect comes to mind. Your decisions in Mass Effect 1 and 2 greatly affect 1) the epilogue of the entire trilogy, and 2) the decisions you're offered in Mass Effect 3. (I am actively and deliberately ignoring Andromeda here, no one needs to point that out.)

Thing is, Mass Effect does this too. Get the council killed and replaced with an all-human council? By ME3 we're back to full diversity, and Udina is councillor no matter who you selected in ME1 too. Genocide the Rachni in ME1? We still have Rachni enemies in ME3. Be a gung-ho Cerberus fanboy/girl in ME2? By the end of that very game, TIM screws you over just as thoroughly as a Shep who despises Cerberus, never mind the sequel. It's just what they have to do, nothing wrong with it.

[Keltest]

Mass Effect comes to mind. Your decisions in Mass Effect 1 and 2 greatly affect 1) the epilogue of the entire trilogy, and 2) the decisions you're offered in Mass Effect 3. (I am actively and deliberately ignoring Andromeda here, no one needs to point that out.)

But frankly, even if every game series did the same thing, it would still be a legitimate criticism of Dragon Age; it would just also be a legitimate criticism of 1) each individual game series and 2) the game industry.

Dragon Age goes back and forth. On the one hand, your choices in Origins affect things like whether Morrigan's son has an Old God soul or not, and who your warden ally is. On the other hand, you can play Hawke as a blood mage in DA2, and he still hates blood magic in Inquisition. And siding with the mages in DA2 still results in the First Enchanter becoming a blood magic monster, and Meridith still goes insane.