This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fifth Blight article.
  • General discussions not pertaining to the improvement of the article should be held in Discussions instead.
  • Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
  • Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes! (~~~~)
  • Do not edit another editor's comment.

Unnamed topic #1 Edit

Ferelden was no longer that weakened by the Orlesian Occupation, though the memories are still strong. In The Calling Fiona says something like "Maric had managed to form Ferelden into a force to be reconned with". They may not be the empire but they're probably stronger than before the occupation. At least that's how I understood it. Kaerendar 10:10, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate this article for consideration for the front page. -- tierrie talk contr 18:29, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers Edit

This page needs a spoiler warning. It pretty much reveals all of what happens in origins.

Isn't spoiling the only reason people visit a wiki like this? I suppose if the entire wiki was redone with a hint/spoil dual purpose a warning would make sense. Bjond (talk) 05:39, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Of course it reveals much of the plot in DA:O, it is an article that summarizes the conflict detailed in the game. If people don't wish to learn about the plot to avoid "spoilers" (ironic considering when the game came out) then it should be understood that searching this wiki is somewhat counter to those expectations. Balitant (talk) 06:35, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Name of the broken Circle Edit

Original name was mage-templar conflict, but mages like Wynne fought against Uldred and his servants. I think most suitable name is "Uldred's revolt on Mage Tower" or "Maleficarum revolt on Mage Tower". Uldred was the leader, but if Victoria Landers notes that he wasn't alone then I ask her to consider the 2nd name of the conflit I suggest. That's what the talk pages are to. (talk) 12:43, June 19, 2013 (UTC)

As you already mentioned, the first title of your suggestion isn't accurate as Uldred wasn't alone. The second one is inaccurate too, as there is no indication that all those who revolted were blood mages. Subsequently, I think the title "Mage revolt on the Circle Tower" is better. Viktoria Landers 12:49, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
I simply want everyone to understand that it wasn't all mages' revolt. What about simply "A revolt on Mage Tower"? (talk) 12:52, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
That's accurate too. Viktoria Landers 13:05, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
In the real world revolts are often named after their leaders: Arminius, Orlov, etc. I don't really understand why it is inaccurate. – mostlyautumntalkcontribs • 13:47, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
Mostlyautumn is right, also a revolt of Ukrainians in Poland is called Khmelnytsky Uprising. Many Uprisings are called after their leaders, because they were supreme leaders, no matter how many were their followers or lieutenants. (talk) 13:58, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
My two main issues lie around the fact that we don't know the exact details about how it started; Niall says that Uldred and some other mages in the fraternities' gathering wanted the Circle to ally with Loghain in order to gain independence. He was a leading figure, but apparently not the only one. Also there are the neutrality issues which we should also take in mind. Anyway I'm just giving a weak 'no', but if you feel strongly about it feel free to go ahead. I simply undid the last edit, as I felt some kind of discussion should have taken place here, before any changes, in respect to the previous discussion. Viktoria Landers 14:13, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
Every mage said they turned against Uldred because he went too far, he was left alone with no supporter but ones he turned into abominations. When Wynne revelated Loghain is a national traitor, most of mages stopped talking with Uldred and he in desperation summoned demons and started this mess. Uldred was the supreme leader of the revolt and everybody said Uldred was responsible for that. (talk) 14:57, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
On Warden's page is also mentioned "Uldred's rebellion".FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 15:11, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

No need for veterans Edit

I think there is no need for mentioning the veterans.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 17:29, November 27, 2013 (UTC)

I am in favor of taking down that section. Viktoria Landers 23:24, November 27, 2013 (UTC)
I'm delating that text.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 23:31, November 27, 2013 (UTC)
You could atleast wait for further discussion. I'm not sure why you wish delete it, it would have been nice if you actually explained so. I am in favour of keeping it. Alexsau1991 25px-Goddammit.svg.png (talk page) 00:08, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

No other conflict page has list of veterans, why should have 5th blight be an exception?FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 10:26, November 29, 2013 (UTC)

Qunari involvement Edit

The seven Qunari soldiers were not sent to fight the Blight but instead gather information. They fought the darkspawn that attacked them in order to survive. Subsequently their involvement in the Fifth Blight was neither on purpose nor noteworthy considering the group's numbers. FirstDrell, please first use the talk page if you still wish to go on with this change. Viktoria Landers 21:27, December 13, 2013 (UTC)

Indeed they were sent to gather information, but they fought them. Everyone fights darkspawn in order to survive. The qunari didn't come to Ferelden to ask people but to see it themselves, they were armed in weapons not feathers and papers, they expected threat. Qunari saw darkspawn, but not the blight, meaning all darkspawn lead by Archdemon. Everyone who isn't with darkspawn is against them. Loghain on this page still has his heraldy and he's on same side as Warden despite for most of the game they are mortal enemies, so is Uldred despite he's always a villain of the story.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 21:44, December 13, 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem might be that the Qunari weren't officially part of the Fereldan Coalition. Uldred is in there because he fought at Ostagar. I think the Qunari fall into the same category as the common people who were in Ferelden and were attacked by the darkspawn. Those people were attacked, and some might have been able to defend themselves, but they weren't actively fighting against the Blight in the same way that the other parties listed were. -Sophia (talk) 21:51, December 13, 2013 (UTC)
Qunari were well trained soldiers, not civillians. Sten can still join Warden. His brothers in arms were dead, when he joined, but they fought against the darkspawn. They weren't a part of the Ferelden coalistion, but I can add them to Belligerents below the coalition. Can it be like I suggest?FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 22:05, December 13, 2013 (UTC)
I think the fact they were soldiers doesn't matter. They are like the merchant caravans that fall to the darkspawn during random encounters. Sten joins as a companion, not a commander or leader. He doesn't consider himself to be fighting the Blight prior to being recruited. For these reasons, I'm against listing the Qunari amongst the belligerents. -Sophia (talk) 22:14, December 13, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Viktoria on this. The qunari contingent were sent to find out what the Blight was. They defended themselves against the darkspawn when they were attacked, they did not actively seek to take part in the battle against the darkspawn. They shouldn't be listed anywhere on this page. Kelcat (talk) 22:32, December 13, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.