[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
You mean an example in Ferelden? No problem. Alistair and Anora hand over the Hinterlands to the Dalish in the Epilogue.[/quote]
I meant in our own history. You do make a good point though, there's such precedents in the game's own settings.
[quote]Given that it was the Orlesians who took the Dales in the first place, you're honestly asking why the Dalish would side with the ruler of Ferelden who handed over land to them, as opposed to doing nothing and risking losing their third homeland to the Orlesians who stole their previous homeland?[/quote]Well, speaking of precedents, the Dalish had no problem with doing nothing and risking loss of their second homeland to one of the previous Blights. Whether they learnt much from it is up for debate (they seemingly learnt that fighting the Blights together with humans can be a smart thing to do, at least)
[quote]That must explain your incessant need to debate this with me - since your alleged lack of comprehension for my writings doesn't seem to stop you from debating every single thing I say.
(...)
You claim don't understand what I say, and yet you always disagree with me.[/quote]
I debate your points as i understand them to be at given moment. When your follow up posts indicate my interpretation could be off, i try to adjust to how i understand your point given the updates. If your responses appear to go back to previous interpretation which i've addressed already, i grow tired of the goalposts being moved around and request you to clarify what exactly your position is. It's not very complicated.
You still haven't, btw.
[quote][quote]tmp7704 wrote...
I think in generic terms at the moment i can just sum up my point of view, that due to these counter-arguments applying to each of these scenarios,
i believe the amount of mages actually attempting to "rise up" would be considerably smaller than you expect. I.e. you seem to be painting image where mages unanimously stand up for their Ferelden brethren and uprising on such scale would have considerable impact overall, while
i'm of the view that such uprising would be rather small if it occured, and as such not mattering much to the big picture and/or relatively easy to squash down. [/quote]
Apparently, your lack of comprehension has magically dissolved since you, again, disagree with my point.
Your view seems to be that no mages would side with Ferelden if it supported the local Circle becoming independent;
you seem to support the idea that no mages would go to Ferelden if it didn't recognize Chantry oversight for the Circle of Ferelden. I disagreed with both ideas. I said the potential exists for mages across Thedas to side with Ferelden if they emancipated the Circle of Magi from the Chantry.[/quote]
You seem to be trying to put words in my mouth here, and right after i actually spelt out what my view on the issue was. I'm not sure what purpose this straw man is supposed to serve, but it's quite a waste of time to build it.
[quote]
[quote]Well, how do you think your own writing comes across here? Yes, i'm using very much the same phrases towards you which i read aimed at me. If you find it condescending, please acknowledge this is the very same tone you've been using. [/quote]To who? The person who told me that I shouldn't share my POV here because he personally disagreed with it and goes into cap overload when anyone disagrees with him? Or to you when you made a condescending remark towards me and I called you on it?[/quote]
If i answered that with "take a guess" you'd no doubt find it condescending too, so to put it simply -- i meant your little quips about my unability to make points and how i should "call you" when i actually make one, and other such pleasantries which you've been sprinkling your posts with for quite a while before you decided to play the victim card.
[quote][quote]What's stopping me from claiming now that all mages would just cheer at the Chantry attacking Ferelden, and dismissing your objection with "
In a game that involves dragons, mages, curses, and abominations, you find such behaviour of mages unrealistic?" [/quote]
Probably because I would cite Uldred and the mage rebellion, since it's canon.[/quote]
Uldred's "rebellion" was technically more of an act of striking a deal with the person he knew to be in charge of the country surrounding the tower, that has gone quite awry and very much not like Uldred wanted it to go. In exchange for the Circle mages lending him help Loghain was supposed to negotiate with the Chantry a better treatment for them; that's quite a different situation from open rebellion against the Chantry and fighting it.
[quote]I never said everything goes because it's a magical setting, I simply found it odd that you claimed a King making a ruling about his own people was unrealistic.[/quote]I didn't say it was the claim i found unrealistic, but the lack of objection to it. It's not really "king making ruling about his own people" when these people happen to live in place where the said king's authority doesn't extend. Much like none of our own countries have much to say about the their former citizens after they happen to relocate abroad. (short of deportation arrangements and such, of course)
[quote][quote]I don't see it as dismissing the ending of the game. Rather, i find the information provided by the lead writer as
follow up to that ending, something the game itself for whatever reasons didn't show. [/quote]I figured Greagoir saying "Yes, your majesty" was all the information anyone needed. There's nothing in DA:O to even support that Alistair had no legitament authority to order Greagoir to do that - and I've accepted that the developers might be changing that for DA2. I've said that it seems that the developers are changing lore to suggest that the Circle of Magi belongs to the Chantry, because there's no mention of it made in DA:O[/quote]
Aside from information that the Circle of Magi existed under the rule of the Chantry long before Ferelden did, and aside from the fact Uldred was trying to make a deal to get the Circle ally itself with Loghain (at the time the technical ruler of Ferelden) which would make no sense if said ruler of Ferelden had plain authority to simply order the Circle around? And aside from Duncan in the mage origin clearly stating that mages
decide to join king's army (or not) which confirms the king cannot just tell them what to do, which very much contradicts the idea of these mages being his direct subjects? And aside from being able to tell Cailan that you "don't cast spells at command" when you first meet him and him agreeing "of course, your magic is not at my beck and call" rather than setting his supposed subject straight?
[quote]There are about
nine named NPCs we can speak to at the Dalish camp: Mithra, Zathrian, Lanaya, Varathorn, Elora, Cammen, Gheyna, Athras, Sarel, and the messenger. All of them serve a purpose. There's no indication that the mages aren't part of the plan in lore.[/quote]Yes, however there's many more Dalish in the camp and not a single of them is a mage. You can verify it easily either in the Toolset or simply siding with werewolves which gives opportunity to fight the elves. Can't help it but find it somewhat jarring, together with not being able to play the Dalish origin as mage.
I think this is something that doesn't really leave much room for discussion -- i'm not exactly disagreeing with the idea that "regular" Dalish mages may be part of the tribe, i just can't find anything in game that'd actively confirm it, and as such wouldn't mind some info from the writers regarding how the Dalish handle their mages. If you on the other hand choose to believe that Dalish mages are part of the tribe and decide you can believe this presumption without any actual confirmation, then that's fine too, as long as we can agree that both options are very much speculations at this point and as such neither makes good argument in any other debate.
Modifié par tmp7704, 05 octobre 2010 - 01:51 .
Retour en haut
