I never understand people who support mages in Dragon Age...

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Rare, Jan 26, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I am on the Templar side and I never understand people who like mages and want them to be free. My 'main' character is a mage; yet, I use him to show off what mages are when they listen to the Templar Order. Such their lives are gone once people found out about you having magic, but would you really want them to be free? I mean they have cause so much shit in Dragon Age Origins (with Redcliffe Village, the Circle Tower, etc.) and in Dragon Age 2, Andres destroyed the Chantry and helped start a civil war and people still let him live?!

    I just got a lot of questions that need to be answer. If anyone played Dragon Age and supports mage, tell me why.
     
  2. I support the mages. Why? Magic is fucking cool as shit.
    It's really just a personal preference.

    I've always been on the mages side, not saying that I fully support their decisions sometimes, but yeah.
    Again, just a personal preference, really. For me, anyway.

    Now that I think about it, however.. sometimes I feel bad for them. Like in Dragon Age II with Feynriel. Yes, especially with him.
    Then again, it all leads up to emotions and shit.

    Not a big deal for me, really.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3.  
    • Love Love x 2
  4. Mages are conduits for the most fucked up shit in that universe.

    They're pretty much like psykers, except they will almost-always fall to the Warp. And then fuck everything up around them.

    I'm with the most fundamental of Templars-- Kill 'em all!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. I'm pro-Mage always. Mike Laidlaw (Lead Designer on the Dragon Age Series) says it boils down to: Liberty vs. Safety. To me freedom/liberty is more important than safety. Both are good but freedom always for me.

    Mages are dangerous, but honestly within the setting a really strong warrior or rogue could do as much damage as a Mage (look at other warrior and rogue characters and compare how dangerous they are). Although magic has more versatility and can have a worse ripple effect, but to me safety is an illusion; you could step outside your front door fall and break your neck and die. Honestly in Thedas your more likely to be stabbed in the back by some street thug then to be killed by a crazy/evil mage and/or abomination. Just because they are dangerous doesn't make it right to oppress them and honestly there are a lot of other dangerous shit running around Thedas already.

    Just because some some people do horrible things doesn't give anyone the right to oppress others who are also a part of that people group (goes the same for real world people groups. Follows very close logic to some racism); Mages don't choose to be born Mages. Honestly Mages are cool and can fight monsters, build amazing contraptions (floating cities made by the ancient elves are mentioned), or study the world and those things are great contribution. And as for them being better off in the Circle... plenty of Templars were corrupt, cruel, and/or abusive; which pushed more Mages into insanity and extremism. Plus isolating the Mages from the outside world (in the Circles), alienates the Mages, which makes it harder for them to empathise with the world, and reinforces prejudice against them in the world.

    Sure its more dangerous; but honestly I would rather dangerous freedom to safe oppression. (I could make real world analogies to Mages vs. Templars, but I don't wan't to create a debates on RL topics; especially when this isn't marked debate.)

    Dragon Age: Inquisition Epilogue Spoilers (open)
    Its possible to get a very good ending for Mages in the epilogue. It results in the Chantry accepting Mages, and Mages making their own organisation to police/govern themselves, and I quote "For the moment, it appears to be working – mages are enjoying unprecedented acceptance throughout Thedas."
     
    #5 Lysander, Jan 27, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2015
    • Love Love x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  6. I support the mages in Dragon Age because I'm not a fascist. To support the Templars is to support oppressing a minority for being born with traits that displease the masses, regardless of whether or not they have actually done anything wrong. It takes away all rights of a minority group for the supposed safety as others, as Lysander already said. Benjamin Franklin said it even better though: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

    Also, keep in mind that the majority of awful things that mages end up doing in the games are done to rebel against the unfair constraints and biases they face. All those major awful things done by mages that you listed can be directly linked to mages being treated like dangerous animals rather than people. Redcliffe got wrecked because his parents didn't want to have to give up their child and see him face a life in the Circle, so he was only able to get rather shitty training from that Jowan guy, thus leading to the inexperienced and poorly trained little mage kid trying to cure his father and screwing things up accidentally. The Circle Tower stuff was all because Uldred wanted greater freedoms for the mages, then his plans fell through (due to Loghain being a traitorous dick) and he tried to escape the Circle; he was stopped so in his desperation he tried to summon a demon, ended up possessed by it, and then things unfolded from there. Anders destroying the Chantry was all about him being against the unjust treatment of mages, which had been displayed very prominently as a major theme throughout the entire game.

    It's entirely likely that none of those tragedies would have occurred if not for how awfully mages were treated. Supporting the continued oppression of the mages is supporting the continued cycle of violent rebellion, and that's just silly.
     
    • Love Love x 5
  7. Skyrim belongs to the Nords... Oh. Shit. Wrong epic fantasy!

    In Origins, I meant to save the mages in the tower but I didn't quite figure out that I had to keep doing that thing to stop more of the mages from being possessed (it's been a while since I played, rather foggy on the details) so I inadvertently sided with the Templars by accident.

    In II, I was pro mage all the way, mainly because I played my Hawke to be sympathetic to mages because Bethany was an apostate and Kirkwall's circle was an oppressive hellhole. Fenris' whining wasn't very convincing or nuisanced so I paid him little mind. However, by the end of the game when Anders called in an Ion Cannon strike on the Temple of Nod, and then the Grand Enchanter totally turned a 180 on his morals by turning himself and the other mages into a horrific abomination and basically proving the Templars right, I was facepalming pretty hard. Not to say I thought siding with the mages was wrong even then, it's just when the big poohbah turns into an utter shitlord, it tends to demonstrate bothsides have some equally shitty people.

    In Inquisition, my Inquisitor is trying to balance out the rights of mages while providing structure to prevent the awful shit you've seen throughout the series. He was pretty much done with the mages' shit when they joined up with the Tevinter douchemaster, thereby signing away what freedoms they had to avoid giving up their freedom to the Circle again. And it's like Vivian said, not all Circles are oppressive, and she's doing rather well for herself.

    I'm not finished the game, so please no spoilers if possible. Unless things change, I'm going to see if it's possible to restore the circle and Chantry while forcing it to remodel itself and give mages the option to join up or not. Probably not possible, but I'll damn well try.

    Either way, Skyhold is a mage accepting zone that happens to be alligned with the Templars. They aren't going to talk shit to the guy who saved their damned order.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. I actually want to play Devil's Advocate for your point that it's likely none of those atrocities would have occurred if the mages weren't forced to take desperate measures, which is something I happen to agree with wholeheartedly.

    However, I'd like to posture that if the Circle was never established and there was no overarching organization to guide and contain the mages throughout history, who's to say that worse atrocities wouldn't have been committed over history, and what if the Circle was founded because of things that had happened? I kind of see it in a similar light to science in the real world, there's all sorts of regulations and ethical guidelines to follow to ensure that unhumane and unsafe experimentation never occurs. While most mages/ scientists would abide by a moral code even without structure, there's still a higher percentage of people inclined to push the limits and completely disregard ethics in favour of progress.

    Besides, an example of unregulated mages is the Tevinter Imperium and they're widely regarded as awful douchemongers because of their adherence to slavery and torture, oppressing non-mages, and engaging in blood magic as a necessity to get ahead.

    Food for thought, it's not all black and white.
     
    • Thank Thank x 2
  9. Honestly the Tevinter Magisterium is just the Orlesian Nobility given magical power. If the Orlesian Nobility had magical power I think they would be just as bad as the Magisterium. The mages in the south have a very different culture. The strongest fraternity (which are basically mage political parties) is the...

    I also don't believe its black and white, but the mages are the lighter option; in my opinion.
     
    #9 Lysander, Jan 27, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2015
  10. It depends really I supported the mages because I felt they were oppressed for what they 'could' do. And when you only think about what they could do, people panic and try to control that situation. While really those people never had the idea of doing such a thing. Like Anders said in the ending of DA2, this would of happened eventually he just sped it up. Now was he in the right? No he was not. This would be a case in which I did what a templar would do and subdued him. The way I see it, you can give them freedom, yet if they choose such a inhumane act then by all means act on that one or those involved. Their were also many great templars in mages that didn't push their boundary.


    Dragon Age Spoilers (open)
    In the inquisition game, the mage grey warden sacrificed herself to injure the dragon that was attacking them. Did it really matter in the end? Not really no, but it was the thought and act of what she did that counted. This shows me that not all mages are bad and some will even go down just to give others that few seconds of survival, even if the enemy is still alive. Same with the templars, in DA2 one helped mages cause even he felt they were being treated poorly. This coming from a man who received training on how to subdue mages, and here he is helping them.


    And that's why the templars and mages are both in the wrong, they judged all of them on what few did. When they should only judge the one culprit.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  11. Other's have already voiced most of my reasoning so I'll keep my reply short and to the point.

    Liberty > Safety.

    Mage's are just people born with powers they had no choice about, to isolate and treat them badly is by practice no different than say separating whites from people of colour, or to make labour camps for the Asian population.
    Hell if you want a good example of the whole issue with detaining people for their powers that isn't dragon age just look at X-Men. Most of the movies seem to get the same message across rather well.

    It's similiar reasoning as to why I would side with the Krogans and the Geth in Mass effect, they were people being given shit and hate because of the race they belonged to, not because of anything they did as individuals. And because people already decided to look onto them poorly, ever future action the Mages, Krograns or Geth made the public only used as more ammunition against them.

    +I'd be lying if I said that I didn't also personally relate with the three groups.
    I understand what it's like to be hated for behind different, and I understand what it's like for people to already see you badly so no matter what you do it only acts as more reason to dislike you.


    Plus the Templars are a very religious order by nature, they operate on a "This is a sin! Destroy it because God!" mentality rather than a "Logically, rationally and scientifically this is the best way to handle the situation", so even if Mage's weren't a thing I'd still have my issues with the Templars simply by how they manage and operate themselves.

    Edit: For a more modern example, that a lot of people here can relate to, LGBT.
    A lot of people still look at them with fear, hate etc. because they are seen as 'different' from other people. Mages are basically the same deal, people who are being given shit because they were born differently than others were.
     
    #11 Gwazi Magnum, Jan 27, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2015
    • Thank Thank x 1
  12. I'm playing rogue in the first game and I tend to keep at least one mage with me at all times, but having two is ideal (often leads to problems because I don't have my rogue focusing on pickpocketing and stealing, so I have to have Leliana with me all the time too. Creates an imbalance). I like the various abilities they have access to, really. And not only does it feel morally wrong to condemn the mages when you've got mages in your party (I love having Wynne around! Her heals and revives are love and life), but it just isn't something I'd do personally. A few bad eggs don't equal all annihilation.

    Plus, the templars always kind of came off as assholes to me.
     
  13. When you ban something, the people who are generally considered bad will use that banned thing for banned means.
    When something isn't banned normal proportionate amounts of society will use said thing, but in equal proportion the over-indulgence or abuse of said thing is much lesser and equal to it not being used for nefarious purposes.

    However when it comes to Dragon Age, well the damned writers leave you with something to think about. In literally every case if things are left to happen without special intervention, whether it be the Hero of Fereldan, the Champion of Kirkwall or the Inquisitor magic almost always results in something which fucking sucks a big fat--

    Ahem.

    The templars however tend to go toward extremes, which by all accounts just perpetuates magic fucking everything up. In the end, everyone is morally obscure in their actions. Save for the Qunari mage in DA2 who kills himself, that was the most logical thing any mage in the entire series ever did.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  14. I support mages, because Bethany Hawke.

    'nuff said.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. I'd like to point out, especially in regards to the highlighted section, that we as players only see a fragment of time in a very long history. Especially in the case of the krogan, it's easy to look at how they turned out as a species and see the turians and salarians as remorseless assholes for creating the genophage. However, as it's pointed out in the series, there's a very good chance that without it the krogan rebellions would have been a success and it just might have meant the extinction of the other races because of the exploding krogan population and their vast martial ability. It wasn't unlike the mages in Dragon Age being forced to do desperate things like summon demons or do blood magic in the sense that they saw no other option. The only reason the salarians and turians look like the bad guys is because this is like a few thousand years after the fact and we're given a sympathetic character in Wrex. Likewise, if there wasn't Legion, would your feel so strongly about the geth? Yes, you could very well be like me and think that they were just defending themselves, but if the only face you see of them is the ones that have tried to kill you, then is it really easy to sympathize with them?
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  16. Fair point with the Krogan's, it is definitely easier to side with them thanks to the time gap and Wrex.
    But in all honesty they still answered genocide with genocide, in response to a situation they themselves caused by introducing the Krogan to such technology. Now obviously I can't fully predict what my stance would have been in the past if the situation was different, but I imagine I'd still agree with the Krogans. It would simply have taken more time for me to take said position.

    For the Geth though. I was on their side long before Mass Effect 2 even came out. The moment I asked Tali about the Geth in the first game and she gave me their history I had all that I needed to convince me that the Quarians were dicks and that the Geth were only trying to protect themselves. And I could hardly blame them for their current acts, by the time I first met them they were already under Reaper control.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  17. *Spoiler alert obviously*

    Normally I'd say "liberty", but "liberty" in this case is for the freedom of mages. Aside from Merril, nearly every encounter you have with a mage in Dragon Age 2 ends with them becoming a blood mage, consorting with blood mages, and so on. Even if you go full kindness and side with mages at every opportunity, doing everything in your power to protect them and be nice to them, even the first enchanter becomes a horrible abomination that takes your entire well trained and armed squad to take out. The Templar were right: The Circle of Magi had to be purged in this instance. They were corrupt to the core.

    That being said, you were confronted with the same option in Dragon Age: Origins, and after choosing to save the Circle of Magi, they turn out to not only not be a bunch of malificarum blood mages, but help you save the noble son in Redcliffe via magic. Yet, still, the Circle of Magi in Ferelden wasn't controlled in a tyrannical fashion: The First Enchanter and head of the Templar were close friends, with the Templar being sympathetic and the Mages being understanding. This is especially clear in the character of Wynne: Who is a wise, understanding old woman that tries to help guide you without forcible controlling you.

    In Dragon Age 2, it's far more black and white and extreme. The Templar were right: The Mages are a bunch of malificarum far more often than not. (Even Merril consorts to using blood magic and doesn't appear to learn anything after it pretty much spells the end for her entire clan due to her actions.) On the other hand, the Templar are paranoid and operating in a tyrannical fashion, and there are instances where you can see mages turning to blood magic because they feel they have no other choice to survive under their rule.

    To summarize: Liberty is a meaningful quality among men, but when certain men are born with superhuman powers that give them a far greater chance to go insane, certain liberties must be curtailed. That being said, a healthy, mutual respect with sympathy from the caretakers and understanding from the mages is necessary to sustain such a relationship. Fear and paranoia only causes terror, which leads to stupid people doing stupid things, like turning to blood magic. For those that scream out "liberty for mages!" I ask you, if every psychotic on Earth suddenly gained the capacity to manifest their darkest desires upon the world, and the only thing keeping them from total madness is willpower, and demons turned out to be real and constantly testing that willpower to possess these people, would you sincerely be comfortable with letting thousands of biological superweapons held together by piano strings to walk the Earth as freely as everyone else? Or would you try to gather them together to keep not only the public safe from them, but them safe from the public?

    "Equality" is only meaningful when all parties are truly equal. Mages are not.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Love Love x 1
  18. My exact suggestion of response would vary on the specific situations and elements.
    Which means it would also change per location/area.

    But as a general rule of thumb?
    I'd set up support groups, services etc.
    And I'd have law enforcement trained in ways to handle magical threats (like they are trained to handle most potential dangers).

    But I wouldn't round up the mages and lock them all away.
    That like several others pointed out (Jorick specifically well) would only worsen the situation.
     
    • Love Love x 1
  19. You mean... Support groups like... The circle of magi? And law enforcement trained to handle magical threats... Like... Templar? :ferret:
    In Dragon Age: Origins they were free to leave the circle tower to conduct business, meet friends, and so on. Especially older members of the Circle who were assumed to have greater control over their powers, like Wynne, who was freely allowed to accompany you anywhere, anytime, for any reason. The reason they were gathered in one place forcible is because you have parents like the ones in Redcliffe who would refuse to send their children away to be protected, hire private tutors, and then watch their children become homegrown malificarum.

    The only thing I really detest about the circle of magi system is that it disconnects people from their families. That is foolish. Families should be allowed to visit freely and have supervised visits with a templar or two outside of the circle from time to time. Emotional stability and trust go a long way, but the system itself is solid and makes perfect sense for the reason of "psychopaths with power" quotient.
     
  20. I will grant the Fereldan of Circle of Magi wasn't that bad.
    I didn't hate them for what they did, the concerns are legitimate and they were handiling it pretty well for the most part.

    But there were still matters and issues I disagree with, and think they could have handled better.
    Such as the things were talking about below.
    Support Groups as in those who can see for a few hours and then can still have your own life. Not a permanent/forced place of residence.

    Hell I would even support specialized schools or classes for mages.
    Keyword though being 'schools or classes', not a forced/permanent place of residence.

    While Templars had two added issues.
    1. Religious by nature and authority, not as much legal and forced to follow procedures.
    2. They were 24/7 supervisors. I'm not saying train police and then assign them to mages, I'm saying train them so in the case a mage goes nuts the police know how to counter it.
    For older members, those who spent most of their life there already.
    Younger people were almost all but forbidden to leave if the Blight wasn't knocking on their door.
    Essentially robbing them from any experience or interaction with the outside world while growing up, which can really isolate one's self from others.
    Agreed here, the whole family thing is foolish and was a huge motivator for mages to both hate the tower, and for families to hide their children from it.
    But even then, assuming the parents are good and decent people it is too important of a job/role to relegate the parents to simple visits.
    They should be the main people looking after and raising their kid.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.