174 réponses à ce sujet

[Ellestor]

I see. Indeed, I wouldn't root for mago-anarchy.

[moilami]

TheCreeper wrote...

Look at some of the higher end spells, A man with a sword can not cause nearly as much damage as a massive Firestorm, well they could in theory but it would take a lot longer

Why you fear so much mages would do that? Do you think mages are stupids? And by the way anyone with skill in was it "poisons" could do helluva bombs in DA. And if a mage would do firestorm then another mage could counter it with snowstorm or whatever spell it was. That could be used to counter any fires, so a mages could actually make superior fire department. If you know anything about history then you would know mage fire department would be priceless in medieval settings.

If you really think mages are stupids, then I recommend you go to some high realism NWN server and roll a mage and begin to do all kind of stupid things mages would not do. But please tell me in advance when you do that simulation. I want to be there lolling and see what happens to a stupid mage.


Edit: Laws of evolution would work and soon there would be one really dead braindead mage.

Edit: And well lol, I bet you would not want to be a braindead mage even in safe game simulation for very long.

Edit: Better yet, roll a Lolithe Drow mage in serious Drow setting and begin to act braindead lulz. I just warn you, with Lolithes you would get to see "graphical" poses. And remember, Lolithes worship chaotic evil very cruel spider queen, so you would be safe playing braindead mage, wouldn't you

Modifié par moilami, 28 février 2011 - 09:25 .

[LobselVith8]

DieHigh2012 wrote...

LobselVith8 wont grasp that, I spent two pages trying to explain to him the exact same thing. Finally just had to stop replying to his posts.

How unfortunate for me that I won't have to endure your condescending attitude or your "theories" about the people who disagree with you.

DieHigh2012 wrote...

I am interested in how these other "free mage" cultures treat their mages. I do not think it's a eutopia like what Lobs seem to thinks. Ether the mages or the regular humans, I reckon someone is getting the short end of the stick.

Another inaccurate statement from you, Die? I never claimed Rivain, the Dalish, or the Chasind were ever utopias, I addressed that it's not a universal standard for mages to be feared and despised like they are in the Andrastian societies, where mages are all blamed for the sin of the Black City. The Andrastians perception of mages is tied to their religious beliefs, which contrasts with the different views of mages we see among the people of Haven and the Dalish, as well as the accounts of the Chasind and the people of Rivain.

[Chzrm]

I really see what the Circle does as evil. Taking kids from their families and forcing them to live there, then making them Tranquil if they can't deal with the pressure of the actual test.... not cool. Also, the whole hunting down apostates and slaughtering them solely because they weren't raised in the Circle deal? Also not cool.

I honestly feel like there are more mages that are evil ~because~ of the Circle, than there would be if it didn't exist. Look at Jowan, for example. He just wanted to be with that girl, but it was forbidden, so he was driven to try and escape. When the templars surrounded him, he used blood magic to defend himself, and everyone goes OHMIGOD BLOOD MAGE!!!! If you look at the circumstances, it's the templars who are evil in that scenario.

[wcholcombe]

My character being raised in a world where mages are sources of fear, evil, and trepidation is very much not a fan of apostates.

Seriously, this idea that the mages deserve to be free just really doesn't fit with the mindset of timeperiod it would be in. Especially if the populace at large believed-correctly or incorrectly-that mages are responsible for the blight and that they are all giant abominations waiting to happen.

Plus there is this tidbit from the lore about keepers, hedge wizards, and other variations of apostates"

"Because these individuals are subject to demonic possession, tales of witches and shamans going mad are quite common"

[Xezcente]

If Circle is evil, then it's a necessary evil. Since I'm making my Hawke an apostate, I can see him hating on the Chantry and templars. Like the husband of Aveline in the beginning.

"The Order dictates." I told him to back off and keep his hands of me and Bethany.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]cglasgow wrote...

[quote]Lobselvith66 wrote...

Jowan as Master Levyn and protecting innocents is also an example of a free mage in practice. So is every Grey Warden mage out there.[/quote]

Jowan and every Grey Warden mage out there had Circle training originally.   The Grey Warden mages also survived a Harrowing.   (Yes, even Anders... remember, he didn't run away from the Circle until after his Harrowing.)   So, your claim here is invalid. [/quote]

It's not an invalid claim since all Grey Wardens are now free mages who have no ties to the Chantry or even the templars. Regardless of the inception of their training, they are indeed "free" mages, who can even raise their own children and marry. And you failed to address how Jowan, who never received his Harrowing, is spending his time away from the Circle protecting innocents from the darkspawn as Master Levyn, or how Malcolm Hawke only wanted to live a normal life with his wife and children. Your accusations about free mages don't stand up to canon.

[quote]cglasgow wrote...

[quote]Lobselvith66 wrote...

I disagree. The primary reason was that Isolde was pious and didn't want her son to be a mage, which is explicitly clear from what Jowan tells us.[/quote]

Yes, and Chantry doctrine re: mages is that when you discover that your child is a mage, you call the templars and have them taken to the Circle, as Wynne tells us.

Isolde deliberately flouted this doctrine.  Quit claiming that Isolde = Chantry policy on mages.    If she'd actually followed Chantry policy on mage children, the entire mess would not have happened. [/quote]

Isolde = the Andrastian perception of mages because they're blamed for the sin of tainting the Golden City and the horrors of the Tevinter Imperium. The anti-mage dogma of the Andrastian faith is the direct cause of why she saw mages as evil and wanted her son not to be a mage. You can't excuse the social conditions and perceptions that the Chantry put in place with its docturine about mages that directly lead to the loss of life at Redcliffe.

[quote]cglasgow wrote...

[quote]Lobselvith66 wrote...

The Chantry is a strong proponent of mages being under their heel.[/quote]

Yup!  That's not a fact in dispute.

What's in dispute is the part where this means that the Chantry is automatically wrong and horrible and awful and mages should just be left to walk around without supervision. [/quote]

I think they're wrong, not evil. You oppress a group of people, deny them basic rights and can kill them or give them a lobotomy without oversight, and they're going to rise up to claim their freedom. It's happened in the past, and it's happening now.

[quote]cglasgow wrote...

[quote]Lobselvith66 wrote...

What we do know is that they don't have mages living under an oppressive tyranny.[/quote]

So, these free places allow someone with mage-talent to avoid getting any mage training if they don't want any?   Are you claiming that?

These free places don't kill mages when they turn into abominations?  Are you claiming that?

If you are, then that's crazy.  [/quote]

I see you don't even bother trying to address what I write, and instead fan fic an entirely different discussion from that line about other cultures not oppressing mages. What I'm saying is that we know other cultures don't fear or hate mages simply because they possess magical ability, and we see a number of problems with the Chantry's conduct towards mages when they're constantly running away or revolting against the templars controlling them. 700 years of Rites, and mages still want their freedom.

[quote]cglasgow wrote...

And if not... then how do they REALLY differ morally from the Chantry? [/quote]

They don't toss people in prison for the rest of their lives and deny them basic rights because they happen to be a mage?

[quote]cglasgow wrote...

Everywhere there are mages, there is someone or something forcing them to train even if they don't want to, and sticking a sword in their heads if they end up demon-possessed.   Whether that something is the Chantry, someone else, or even other mages policing themselves is only a difference in degree, not in kind.    The claim that 'mages exist without supervision!' is bogus; it might not be Chantry supervision, but there is no way that they are not trained and supervised by someone. [/quote]

Mages exist without losing all their rights for being mages. Nobody here is arguing against mages being properly trained, they're arguing against stripping them of all their rights and leaving them to a mercy of an anti-mage religious order.

[quote]cglasgow wrote...

Because a mage left untrained by anyone?   Ends up like Connor. [/quote]

And when you oppress them to the breaking point, you get the result of Uldred.

[quote]cglasgow wrote...

So I ask the question again -- if you get rid of the Chantry, what will you replace it with?    What will they do to keep abominations from happening?    What methods will they use?    And in what way will they be morally superior to the Chantry? [/quote]

You replace oppression with freedom; you replace tyranny with law and order; you have people policing the populace to protect everyone, not subjugating mages into submission to the point where it's going to lead to an inevitable war between the Order of Templars and the mages across Thedas.

[quote]cglasgow wrote...

If you can't answer those questions, then you can't say that the Chantry should be abolished.   Because getting rid of the Chantry without replacing it with anything is the same thing as saying 'Hey!  Demons!  Come eat me!' [/quote]

Except we know of cultures that don't have an equivalent to the Chantry or the templars, and those cultures have stood for centuries.

[cglasgow]

No, we know of cultures that don't have a Chantry and have stood for centuries. You're the only one claiming that they have nothing equivalent, that they perform no monitoring of their mages.

[LobselVith8]

cglasgow wrote...

No, we know of cultures that don't have a Chantry and have stood for centuries. You're the only one claiming that they have nothing equivalent, that they perform no monitoring of their mages.

I'm saying that mages aren't controlled in these societies like they are under the Andrastian societies. We already know Grey Warden mages aren't under control per David Gaider. We also read from the Bioware Blog listing a few codex entries that the nation of Rivain and the Dalish clans are referenced as having mages not under the control of templars, from what we read from the codex:

"Some are saying, however, that this needs to change. They remind the world that mages are not controlled by templars everywhere in Thedas: not among the Rivaini witches, the Dalish keepers or the Tevinter magisters… and those societies are, arguably, no worse off."

Like I said time and again, we should have law and order, not oppression. But we clearly don't agree on the issue, so maybe we should simply agree to disagree?

[cglasgow]

I'm saying that mages aren't controlled in these societies like they are under the Andrastian societies. We already know Grey Warden mages aren't under control per David Gaider.

Really?  He said that?  Are you sure you didn't misunderstand something he did say?

Because if you've read Anders' origin story for DA2, then you'll know that they still monitored him as a Grey Warden (with an ex-templar, no less!), and tried to kill him as soon as they thought he'd gone abomination.   That's why he left the Wardens.  That's why he's a playable companion in DA2.  It's in the official game continuity.

You are entitled to your own opinion.  You are not entitled to your own personal reality.

We should have law and order, not opression.

Define 'oppression' in this context, and explain why only the Chantry is guilty of it.

Forcing mages to go train even if they don't want to?   You seriously think the Dalish don't do that?   Congrats, you have mage talent!  You're now the keeper's apprentice even if you never wanted the job and just wanted to hunt!   The rest of your life has now been chosen for you, regardless of what your own hopes and dreams were! 

Or the Rivaini?  Or the Tevinter?   Think they just let kids who are expressing mage-talent alone?   That they don't drag them off into an apprenticeship whether they wanted to go or not?  

Killing mages when they go abomination?   Yeah, I'm sure its only the Chantry that does that.  Everywhere else is totally cool with abominations.  /sarc

Everybody 'oppresses' mages in this world; the only question is how much.   The idea that other places just let people with mage-talent free to do whatever they want is friggin' ridiculous; anybody born with mage talent must become either a trained mage or a corpse, its the only way the surrounding landscape survives.    And even after they're trained, they can still possibly go abomination, so they'd have to be watched.    The only difference being in non-Chantry lands means is that it ain't the Chantry doing the conscription and the training and the watching... but, y'know, for some reason it doesn't feel that much more comfortable, even if you change the guy's uniform.

Modifié par cglasgow, 28 février 2011 - 05:25 .

[LobselVith8]

cglasgow wrote...

Really?  He said that?  Are you sure you didn't misunderstand something he did say?

Because if you've read Anders' origin story for DA2, then you'll know that they still monitored him as a Grey Warden (with a templar, no less!), and tried to kill him as soon as they thought he'd gone abomination.   That's why he left the Wardens.  That's why he's a playable companion in DA2.

You are entitled to your own opinion.  You are not entitled to your own personal reality.

You could have simply asked for the quote, cglasgow. Here it is:

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Yes, married or not the child of a mage is taken away by the Chantry.

Would the same happen if the mage was also a Grey Warden, such as the Warden-Commander of DA:O and Awakenings?

A mage who is not part of the Circle is not subject to the will of the Chantry. So, no.

So no, Grey Warden mages aren't under Chantry or templar control. They are "not subject to the will of the Chantry" so they are clearly independent.

cglasgow wrote...

Define 'oppression' in this context, and explain why only the Chantry is guilty of it.

It's mentioned here:

"To the mages they are often seen as oppressors, even well-meaning ones, and the gap between them is growing larger with each passing year."

cglasgow wrote...

Forcing mages to go train even if they don't want to?   You seriously think the Dalish don't do that?   Congrats, you have mage talent!  You're now the keeper's apprentice even if you never wanted the job and just wanted to hunt!   No, you can't ignore your mage-talent, its not safe.    Magic is now your full-time job and your life, no matter what your own hopes and dreams were.

There's a difference between training mages and stripping their rights away and forcing them to live in a prison where they have no agency over their lives. Since we clearly don't agree about the Chantry or the mages, why don't we simply agree to disagree?

[cglasgow]

Because that would require me to accept your initial premise that 'not subject to the will of the Chantry' and 'independent' are the same thing.

Which is a false dichotomy. You're setting it up so that 'Chantry = bad, therefore non-Chantry = good'.

When the truth is actually 'Chantry = bad, and so's everybody else'.

Sure, the Chantry is bad.   Nobody's arguing that.  Its your insistence that they're the only bad people around that's utterly mystifying.   This is not a Saturday morning cartoon, and just because one guy is a bad guy, that doesn't automatically mean that anybody opposing him is a good guy.   Cripes, were you even paying attention during the first game?    Did you not notice how many of our potential allies had their own agenda and history of dick moves?

This is the world of Dragon Age. Its grey and ugly and every large institution is morally compromised; the only question is how much and how often. I mean, hell. Warden's Keep showed us some of the bad **** the Grey Wardens have gotten up too. And the Dalish clan that was so nicey-nice in DA1 is revealed in DA2 to be making secret deals with Flemeth and producing a playable mage companion with a specialty in blood magic. We don't know anything about the Rivaini except that they're like everybody else... and we do know about the Tevinter, and they're horrible.

So, yeah, you don't get to scapegoat the Chantry as the source of all wrong and keep claiming that if we just got rid of the Chantry, it would all be hugs and puppies. Get rid of the Chantry, and it will be replaced by something only marginally less awful. Because this is a dark fantasy setting, and they mean it.

PS: If I'm telling someone that they just got drafted into a training program, and that after they graduate they will be stuck in one particular career for the rest of their lives whether they like it or not... exactly where the hell is their 'agency'?

Modifié par cglasgow, 28 février 2011 - 05:33 .

[LobselVith8]

cglasgow wrote...

Because that would require me to accept your initial premise that 'not subject to the will of the Chantry' and 'independent' are the same thing.

How are they different? An independent mage, which is exactly what a Grey Warden mage is, is not subject to the will of the Chantry. There's no difference.

cglasgow wrote...

Which is a false dichotomy. You're setting it up so that 'Chantry = bad, therefore non-Chantry = good'.

I personally don't agree with what the Chantry does to the mages, and I address that other cultures don't imprison mages or have them under the control of templars as the DA2 codex explicitly points out.

cglasgow wrote...

When the truth is actually 'Chantry = bad, and so's everybody else'.

There's no indication the Dales had it bad, there's no evidence that the Dalish clans or the Chasind tribes have it bad, and there's nothing to suggest the nation of Rivain has it bad.

cglasgow wrote...

Sure, the Chantry is bad.   Nobody's arguing that.  Its your insistence that they're the only bad people around that's utterly mystifying.   This is not a Saturday morning cartoon, and just because one guy is a bad guy, that doesn't automatically mean that anybody opposing him is a good guy.   Cripes, were you even paying attention during the first game?    Did you not notice how many of our potential allies had their own agenda and history of dick moves?

What's mystifying is why you want to continue this discussion when we clearly disagree on the issue and won't come to an agreement over the treatment of mages. I find what the Chantry does to mages to be repugnant, and you're welcome to disagree, but this debate isn't getting is anywhere. The mere fact that other people have their own agendas doesn't dissolve what I find to be the oppressive actions of the Chantry and the templars over the mages.

cglasgow wrote...

This is the world of Dragon Age. Its grey and ugly and every large institution is morally compromised; the only question is how much and how often. I mean, hell. Warden's Keep showed us some of the bad **** the Grey Wardens have gotten up too. And the Dalish clan that was so nicey-nice in DA1 is revealed in DA2 to be making secret deals with Flemeth and producing a playable mage companion with a specialty in blood magic. We don't know anything about the Rivaini except that they're like everybody else... and we do know about the Tevinter, and they're horrible.

This debate is getting is nowhere. We disagree, we aren't going to come to an agreement, so why do you want to continue this discussion? The fact that the world of DA is filled with hatred and racism doesn't change what I find to be a reprehensible system.

cglasgow wrote...

So, yeah, you don't get to scapegoat the Chantry as the source of all wrong and keep claiming that if we just got rid of the Chantry, it would all be hugs and puppies. Get rid of the Chantry, and it will be replaced by something only marginally less awful. Because this is a dark fantasy setting, and they mean it.

It's not scapegoating when I address what we actually know about what the Chantry and the templars do, especially when their own history doesn't back up their ascertions. You're welcome to disagree with me, but honestly, that's also a point addressed in Dragon Age: we have the Libertarians and the Loyalists who disagree about the Circles and the Chantry. People are allowed to disagree.

Also, any speculation that freeing the mages from the Chantry would lead to something only "marginally less awful" is precisely that - speculation. I'd rather emancipate the mages and attempt to make Kirkwall into a safe haven where mages and non-mages can live together than support a system (the Chantry controlled Circles) I have no faith.

cglasgow wrote...

PS: If I'm telling someone that they just got drafted into a training program, and that after they graduate they will be stuck in one particular career for the rest of their lives whether they like it or not... exactly where the hell is their 'agency'?

Your analogy is flawed because mages aren't drafted, they're imprisoned. The term "prison" is explicitly used in the Magi Origin, and can be used in discussion between the Grey Warden and Wynne in reference to the Circle Tower.

[cglasgow]

How are they different? An independent mage, which is exactly what a Grey Warden mage is, is not subject to the will of the Chantry.

No, they're subject to the will of the Grey Wardens instead, and it'll be a fellow Warden that tries to kill them if they think they're going abomination.   That is exactly what they did to Anders.

That's such a vast difference, indeed.  /sarc

You're so hung up on the cosmetic differences that you ignore the basic truth; get rid of the Chantry, and all that happens is that someone else takes over the job.

PS: I find it hilarious that you're talking about life in the Grey Wardens as 'independence'; Grey Wardens are perhaps the only people in the world equally as ****ed over as mages are.   Once you've taken the Joining -- and remember, Grey Wardens are often conscripts, not all volunteers -- you are forever changed, and you are doomed to die young and eaten by darkspawn, whether it be in a fight or when you take the Long Walk down into the Deep Roads.   Even mages can at least hope to die of old age.

This debate is getting is nowhere. We disagree, we aren't going to come
to an agreement, so why do you want to continue this discussion?

Why do you?    Both of us continue to keep posting; only one of is pretending that they don't want to.

If you truly don't care who has the last word, stop trying to grab it.   If you do care, quit pretending you don't.

Modifié par cglasgow, 28 février 2011 - 06:41 .

[LobselVith8]

TMA LIVE wrote...

I'm actually going to be playing a mage first, because I want to play from the prospective of an apostate.

I wonder what the implications will be of an apostate Hawke becoming the Champion of Kirkwall.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

I think the implication is that the chantry will declare an exalted march with the express aim of purging all of the circles. Personally, I hope some of the templars rebel against the chantry and join the mages in casting down the corruption within the Chantry hierarchy.

[DieHigh2012]

LobselVith8 wrote...

DieHigh2012 wrote...

LobselVith8 wont grasp that, I spent two pages trying to explain to him the exact same thing. Finally just had to stop replying to his posts.

How unfortunate for me that I won't have to endure your condescending attitude or your "theories" about the people who disagree with you.

DieHigh2012 wrote...

I am interested in how these other "free mage" cultures treat their mages. I do not think it's a eutopia like what Lobs seem to thinks. Ether the mages or the regular humans, I reckon someone is getting the short end of the stick.

Another inaccurate statement from you, Die? I never claimed Rivain, the Dalish, or the Chasind were ever utopias, I addressed that it's not a universal standard for mages to be feared and despised like they are in the Andrastian societies, where mages are all blamed for the sin of the Black City. The Andrastians perception of mages is tied to their religious beliefs, which contrasts with the different views of mages we see among the people of Haven and the Dalish, as well as the accounts of the Chasind and the people of Rivain.

That was the feeling I got from your posts, do you really want me to get back into this? I had you changing your argument every other post when you were debating me...

[DieHigh2012]

LobselVith8 wrote...

cglasgow wrote...

No, we know of cultures that don't have a Chantry and have stood for centuries. You're the only one claiming that they have nothing equivalent, that they perform no monitoring of their mages.

I'm saying that mages aren't controlled in these societies like they are under the Andrastian societies. We already know Grey Warden mages aren't under control per David Gaider. We also read from the Bioware Blog listing a few codex entries that the nation of Rivain and the Dalish clans are referenced as having mages not under the control of templars, from what we read from the codex:

"Some are saying, however, that this needs to change. They remind the world that mages are not controlled by templars everywhere in Thedas: not among the Rivaini witches, the Dalish keepers or the Tevinter magisters… and those societies are, arguably, no worse off."

Like I said time and again, we should have law and order, not oppression. But we clearly don't agree on the issue, so maybe we should simply agree to disagree?

The quote frome the game has some key words. Like "not controlled by Templars", that dosent mean free with no from of control.

Rivaini witches we know nothing about, The Dalish mages are to few to be a real problem, and in Tevinter you have to be a mage to hold any kind of power in the goverment. Not to mention the slavery and blood magic that is a staple of that culture.

Another key word, "arguably" meaning it is debatable how much "better" it actually is.

[LobselVith8]

Die, you're welcome to have this discussion with someone else, but I'm not interested. I've had this discussion with cglasgow already, and the conversation also went nowhere because we could not reach a consensus. There's no point to it when we're not going to agree. The discussion has moved on.

[LobselVith8]

Blood-Lord Thanatos wrote...

I think the implication is that the chantry will declare an exalted march with the express aim of purging all of the circles. Personally, I hope some of the templars rebel against the chantry and join the mages in casting down the corruption within the Chantry hierarchy.

Wynne seemed concerned that the Libertarians were gaining more support, and I'd imagine an apostate Hawke gaining power and shifting the balance of power in eastern Thedas would draw the Chantry's attention. Seeing how valuable the mages were against the Qunari during the New Exalted Marches, their presence could be what allows Hawke to consolidate power and authority if he were to attempt to establish Kirkwall as a haven for the apostates and Circle mages. What interests me is that Cassandra is seeking information about the Champion, and I wonder how this will come into play if Hawke is an antagonist of the Andrastian Chantry and a champion of apostates and mages.

[DieHigh2012]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Die, you're welcome to have this discussion with someone else, but I'm not interested. I've had this discussion with cglasgow already, and the conversation also went nowhere because we could not reach a consensus. There's no point to it when we're not going to agree. The discussion has moved on.

So you have been insulting me for  the last page and a half for no reason? Very petty man...

You are still saying the exact same things from the time you entered the thread. The discussion has not moved on, you haven't allowed that to happen.

[LobselVith8]

DieHigh2012 wrote...

So you have been insulting me for  the last page and a half for no reason? Very petty man...

You are still saying the exact same things from the time you entered the thread. The discussion has not moved on, you haven't allowed that to happen.

You seem to be assuming that I'm addressing you as someone you previously knew or using more than one account (I wasn't very clear on what you were insinuating), and that isn't the case. It's pretty clear that the templar vs. mage discussion are as successful as the debates about Loghain, and it doesn't really change anything. I'd rather discuss the situation about Kirkwall being the seat of power for the templars over eastern Thedas and the implications about Hawke as an apostate living in Kirkwall as well as what it means when he becomes the Champion. You're welcome to discuss your issues on the matter, but I'm disinclined to discuss the mage v. templar issues further.

[DieHigh2012]

LobselVith8 wrote...

DieHigh2012 wrote...

So you have been insulting me for  the last page and a half for no reason? Very petty man...

You are still saying the exact same things from the time you entered the thread. The discussion has not moved on, you haven't allowed that to happen.

You seem to be assuming that I'm addressing you as someone you previously knew or using more than one account (I wasn't very clear on what you were insinuating), and that isn't the case. It's pretty clear that the templar vs. mage discussion are as successful as the debates about Loghain, and it doesn't really change anything. I'd rather discuss the situation about Kirkwall being the seat of power for the templars over eastern Thedas and the implications about Hawke as an apostate living in Kirkwall as well as what it means when he becomes the Champion. You're welcome to discuss your issues on the matter, but I'm disinclined to discuss the mage v. templar issues further.

Nope I am actually talking about, you quoting me and talking down to me, while at the same time accuseing me of talking down to anyone I'm debating. (there are a couple examples on this page is you are up to scrolling up)

Also the theme of the thread dosen't change simply because you want it to. Talk about arrogance

[LobselVith8]

DieHigh2012 wrote...

Nope I am actually talking about, you quoting me and talking down to me, while at the same time accuseing me of talking down to anyone I'm debating. (there are a couple examples on this page is you are up to scrolling up)

No, you're not. You've been harassing me and making false accusations against me. Another person even called you a troll because of how you were acting.

DieHigh2012 wrote...

Also the theme of the thread dosen't change simply because you want it to. Talk about arrogance

I said I wasn't interested in discussing the issue with you anymore, and that you were welcome to discuss it with someone else because I have no interest in engaging in a flame war with you over this issue. Please leave me alone, Die. I have no interest in discussing this with you further.

Sharn wrote...

I agree with Anders in awakening when he says mages shouldn't be imprisoned for being born the way they are.

That'll likely come into play since he seems to be an apostate now and Kirkwall is a mecca for the templars. I'm guessing Merrill might factor into this since she's technically an apostate as a Dalish mage, and they have a bad history with the Chantry and the templars from what we know of the Dalish codex. That gives us two potential characters who might side with a pro-mage or pro-apostate agenda.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 03 mars 2011 - 04:27 .

[cglasgow]

And, having played the game through acts 1 and 2, I can safely say that whatever the situation is in general, in Kirkwall, the situation is thus:

There are so many sadists, fanatics, psychos, thugs, and powerhungry idiots on all sides, or on no side and just independently stirring up ****, that the whole thing in Kirkwall is ****ed up beyond repair. Its gonna get /ugly/, man.