57020 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I'll just respond to this quickly while I contemplate climbing KoP's mountain.

I agree that Anders should have more pull over JAnders' decisions than Vengeance, I just don't think pissing Vengeance off is the way to do this. I think that getting Anders to calm down, stop hating Vengeance, and let go of his own anger is the way to go. A lot of the problem here is that Hawke doesn't know pre-Justice Anders. Anders can say that his own anger and hate twisted Justice, but there's no real way for Hawke to grasp what this means (well, I'm not saying it's impossible, more that it's understandable that he fails to grasp it in the context of the story.) Anders and Justice both have problems, and Anders needs to deal with his own to give Vengeance a chance to morph back into Justice.

See I'm of the mind that like pre-Justice Anders there's no way for Justice to go back to normal. Trying to get Vengeance a chance to morph back into Justice is futile. 

And to me feeding Vengeance and making him think everything he does is correct isn't the way to calm him down either it'll just keep thinking it's Justice and everything it does is "right". Frankly it's worse because feeding Vengeance affects far more than just Anders. Hawke doesn't tend to grasp much of anything to be honest....so him not getting that isn't a big issue. 

A therapy session isn't gonna change Vengeance into a nice and (mostly untainted) spirit again. That stain is permanent. If Vengeance does go back to being Justice it'll never be the old Justice. There's good chance he'll be just as crazy as Anders is. To me the best way to get Justice to recover is to get him away from the source of his tramua. To get him as far away from Anders body (and memories) as possible. 

My big facepalm-worthy, too-cute solution to all of this is convincing Justice that he isn't being fair to Anders. He's asking too much of him, destroying him with guilt, and it isn't fair to do that to a mortal man and a friend. I'm not sure if this is still possible. I think the Warden and Hawke could do it working together, but I don't think the shape of the story required for a video game will offer that opportunity.

That is a bit of a facepalm I don't believe Justice is liable to listen though. As for the Warden...yeah the Warden just needs a [Persuade] option and everything's golden. Alas the Warden's gone. So I doubt that'll happen. 

I do think that Justice was "necessary," for some very weird values of necessary. Justice gave Anders agency, both the ability to act and the will to act. Without either Justice or the Warden's active support, Anders would never have been able to make the kind of differences he did... he would always have been more motivated by his own freedom and survival than the injustice of the world. It was in his fundamental nature.

I don't view that as necessary. To me saying Anders would never be able to do the kind of differences Justice did isn't a failing. Anders may have been able to do better because of his understanding of human nature. (As for his motivations. People change. Trying to say Anders would always be more movitated by freedom and survival is a disservice to his character.) As for prefering freedom and surivival over injustice again...not a complete failing. This too would help him relate to OTHER mages instead of viewing them as simply an ideal. And reach compromises that allowed mages to be relatively safe and free even if they had to still endure some injustices (like not having the same rights as normal people, or having to be forced into the circle for a specific amount of time, checkins and the like). He also might've been sane enough to go to others for help and not had Justice's ridculous "us or them." mentality. Oh it would've taken alot much much longer. But most things that last do. 

Or he may have stayed the same and remained free as a bird and decided not to rock the boat. I don't see that as a failing. (frankly I'm of the mind that the templars attacking him in the Wardens would've been the straw that broke the camel's back Justice or no). To me the circles aren't really that bad for a oppressive instution. (Compared to most others in fiction). They're not forced to work, the beatings and the like in the Kirkwall Circle seem to be the exception (thus the WTF the Starkhaven mages reacted to when they got there), they're fed, housed, clothed, educated. Yes they can't go outside and they're children are taken from them. But as far as oppressive regimes go? They have it pretty good. 

I don't think that joining in the way they did was a good idea, especially not given what they became. But all my arguments today hinge on the idea that something that can be a very, very bad idea for some people may be a good idea in the long run for most people. Basically, without knowing it, Anders sold his identity, his stability, and any chance of future happiness for the chance that someday, in the future, someone like him would have a chance to end up with the pretty girl, good meal, and right to shoot lightning at fools. I view him as a Sydney Carton figure, essentially.  It is a far, far better thing he does than he has ever done.

 

And I see it as a bad idea in the long run for most people. If anything good happens from this it'll be because of other people seeing the chaos and changing it into something worthwhile. I won't give Anders credit for that (to steal KoP's words). 

And if his actions end up with the mages in worst conditions? Will it still be a far better thing he does than he's ever done? Better than helping stop the Architect? Better than healing the sick and poor? It being a better action depends on the consequences of that action. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 08 juin 2011 - 10:37 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ SF
Yay! I miss the creepiness.

And I just realized that my ego might be a bit over-inflated (mountain?). Just a bit.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 juin 2011 - 10:25 .

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I would have preferred Anders hoping and actively tryng his best to make sure mages stand a chance at winning.

Which is beyond the scope of his ability (or really anyone else's, given the time), probably.

Would MLK been able to peacefully accomplish what he did if it weren't for the groundwork set by people like John Brown who used violent methods and ultimately contributed to the provocation of a bloody civil war? I don't know. But if his actions and his posturing as an easily exploitable symbol do ultimately create a climate for tacticians to take advantage of, I don't think his role should be discounted, even if he's kind of bat**** insane.

Granted, it's a big risk that could easily fall flat on its face and ruin everything for everyone -- but writer prerogative is also a substantial variable in any work of fiction. I don't imagine that will happen because it's not really as interesting.

[ipgd]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

It's almost funny how swiftly this thread oscillates between Very Serious Discussion and jokes about orgies and its assorted paraphernalia.

I ended up posting a picture of the bloated, rotting corpse of a man with a death erection at some point. This is a good thread.

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I would have preferred Anders hoping and actively tryng his best to make sure mages stand a chance at winning.

Which is beyond the scope of his ability (or really anyone else's, given the time), probably.

I think a combination of crucial players could have given mages a bigger chance at winning. But of course, there will never be a guaranteed victory.

And yes I know pretty much anything other than explosives were beyoind Ander's capabilities. Which is why I'd prefer if he didnt' do anything at all.

Would MLK been able to peacefully accomplish what he did if it weren't for the groundwork set by people like John Brown who used violent methods and ultimately contributed to the provocation of a bloody civil war? I don't know. But if his actions and his posturing as an easily exploitable symbol do ultimately create a climate for tacticians to take advantage of, I don't think his role should be discounted, even if he's kind of bat**** insane.

Indeed, his role shouldn't be discounted and I did not argue that it's impossible for mages to win or at least improve their condition. Question is. Should we give him credit for that?
I personally would not at all.

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Indeed, his role shouldn't be discounted and I did not argue that it's impossible for mages to win or at least improve their condition. Question is. Should we give him credit for that?
I personally would not at all.

 

Yeah my issue is...he did destroy the Chantry. The other circles however are the ones who fought to be free and to flee from the templars. [and I still don't know exactly why. Was it just seeing the Chantry destroyed? To me it's more likely that the Chantry started cracking down and all the circles became borderline (or complete) Kirkwalls (minus the thin veils) and the mages pretty much went they're not taking that . If it was suggested that Anders' had discussed his plan with some (non-bloodmage) resolutionists and the circle was ready for the annullment (or got the message out to other circles) I'd feel more inclined to give him credit. But as it stands...I dunno. 

I mean sure he knocked everything over (but it seems like some of those things were already starting to sway). But someone else ended up clearing out the rubble and building the new stuff. (If I'm making any sense).  

It would be the most fun if we could decide who wins the mages or the Chantry. Alas that's too big of a deal and BW will probably railroad it. *sighs* 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 08 juin 2011 - 10:52 .

[legbamel]

ElleMullineux wrote...
So much Anders flavoured art in the last 24 hours - I am a very happy bunny!!!

Thank you Yami for being awesome/ Queen of the Anders Thread, now lets see if the size of this pic kills the thread and I just have to post a link instead...?

YamiSnuffles

Edit - In the midst of all the depressing Anders stabby/templar talk, this is the alternative you could have... you know you want to run away with him really.

The pack/wrapped staff combination strikes me as freakily phallic, particularly with the surprise nekkid lady on top. 

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And yes I know pretty much anything other than explosives were beyoind Ander's capabilities. Which is why I'd prefer if he didnt' do anything at all.

For good or ill, I'm glad he did. It's more interesting than if he hadn't, I think.

Indeed, his role shouldn't be discounted and I did not argue that it's impossible for mages to win or at least improve their condition. Question is. Should we give him credit for that?
I personally would not at all.

I think credit should go where credit is due: to Anders for starting it all, and to whomever takes the reins of the revolution for moving it to completion.

Though he may end up more than that, if his manifesto were to become popularized to shape the ideology behind the revolution. I think he was setting himself up to be a critical symbol, which the leaders of the revolution may choose to capitalize upon -- possibly even to, yes, religious effect  Supplanting popular religious dogma and mythology with similar, but politcally beneficial manipulated ideas may be easier than tearing it down entirely, and given the religious motivations behind the mage situation in the first place, one of those things may be necessary.

[Silfren]

legbamel wrote...

ElleMullineux wrote...
So much Anders flavoured art in the last 24 hours - I am a very happy bunny!!!

Thank you Yami for being awesome/ Queen of the Anders Thread, now lets see if the size of this pic kills the thread and I just have to post a link instead...?

YamiSnuffles

Edit - In the midst of all the depressing Anders stabby/templar talk, this is the alternative you could have... you know you want to run away with him really.

The pack/wrapped staff combination strikes me as freakily phallic, particularly with the surprise nekkid lady on top. 

Probably because the physical similarity is so close that it can't possibly have been accidental? 

[Ryzaki]

Completely no serious question-

What would Anders' reaction be to Hawke trying to cut his hair? Or make him shave?

[SurelyForth]

Ryzaki wrote...

Completely no serious question-

What would Anders' reaction be to Hawke trying to cut his hair? Or make him shave?

I think he'd be fine with it. Someone pointed out that his hair cut is kinda what you might get if you just chopped off a ponytail and left it at that, so it's my head canon that that's what he did and that's what he does when it gets too long. He doesn't seem to care anything about his appearance anymore, so besides thinking it a waste of time, he might like the attention.

[Patriciachr34]

I don't know. Somehow a long haired, bearded Anders is surprisingly appealing. Kind of viking-esque.

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...
For good or ill, I'm glad he did. It's more interesting than if he hadn't, I think.

For story purposes, of course.

I think credit should go where credit is due: to Anders for starting it all, and to whomever takes the reins of the revolution for moving it to completion.

I wouldn't give him credit for that. I'd simply state that he contributed to start it. I do not believe, in his current state of mind and narrow mindedness when doing the act, that he deserves any credit.

But that's subjective and just me.

Though he may end up more than that, if his manifesto were to become popularized to shape the ideology behind
the revolution. I think he was setting himself up to be a critical symbol, which the leaders of the revolution may choose to capitalize upon -- possibly even to, yes, religious effect  Supplanting popular religious dogma and mythology with similar, but politcally beneficial manipulated ideas may be easier than tearing it down entirely, and given the religious motivations behind the mage situation in the first place, one of those things may be necessary.

Possibly, if his manifesto becomes something important. But not before that. But again, just me.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 juin 2011 - 11:15 .

[Ryzaki]

Hm...now fic bunny about him and my jerkwad Hawke cutting his hair is dancing around.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

kromify wrote...

wow. that's not a wall of text; that's a mountain

Ahem.

Ok, I've decided the only way to deal with the discussion at this point is to discard the majority of the quote trees, because they're descending into weird semantic specifics (not that I am not partially responsible for this. I am! But if someone has to make a clean break it might as well be me.) I may refer to small, specific quotes when necessary.

I think that the last seven to ten years of Thedas History (what is the total time period from the end of Origins proper to the Chantry boom?) were the best time for the College of Magi to act, and the fact that they weren't able to do so indicates that nobody inside with sufficient power is willing or able to do so. This is largely because the people inside who have the power rise to power by being the most accepting of the Chantry's oppression.

The American revolution succeeded because people who weren't Loyalists were able to rise to positions of influence. Right now that is impossible within the Circles, as all their elections and meetings are held right beneath the nose of the Templars.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Uldred was very close to succeeding and his failure does not lie in his failure to organize or ally with political strongmen. But rather by Wynne's idiocy. I do not see why this cannot be replicated and improved upon, and which can involve several Circles (via local authorites allying to do so). The nature of his failure does not refute my argument at all and refutes yours when you claim that can't possibly organize or find allies.

Furthermore, you keep implying that all of Thedas' mages need to rise up at the same time. Something I do nto believe is necessary. All the vital Circles need to rise up. Only once they've secured an alliance with local authorites. Those local authorities (like Ferelden or Nevarra), do nto need an all powerful continent wide mage alliance, to think mages in their own territories are worth allying to. In fact, such a thing might scare them.

I don't consider Uldred and Loghain a good example of a productive Mage/State alliance, because we have no evidence as to what they Chantry would have done when they discovered what was occurring. I'll have to finish my current Origins replay to familiarize myself with the situation more, but I just don't see it working. (Can you illustrate for me how his failure is based around Wynne's idiocy? I don't see how they would have been able to survive the blight and Orlais without Wynne and the Warden's intervention, but I could be not remembering things right.)

Essentially, I don't think that the allegiance between a single tower and a single state would accomplish anything remotely useful. I also don't think there's any rational way that multiple circles could have established coordinated allegiances with multiple states at the same time... for the same reason that Loghain did not already have the full support of Nevarra against Orlais - because things are just not that simple or easy to arrange.

But it all boils down to whether or not you think that a flashpoint is necessary for multiple circles to have a chance to contact and attempt to broker deals with multiple states simultaneously. I believe the Circle is too tightly controlled to pull that off currently. You believe they simply have not done it yet because they are stupid. There's no way to prove which is true, and there isn't a lot of evidence either way.

If you think that a flashpoint was needed, and that Anders understood that he was creating a necessary flashpoint, then it's worth it to give him credit.

If you think that no such flashpoint was necessary, then it makes sense not to give him any credit at all.

The flashpoint's the thing.

[ipgd]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I don't consider Uldred and Loghain a good example of a productive Mage/State alliance, because we have no evidence as to what they Chantry would have done when they discovered what was occurring. I'll have to finish my current Origins replay to familiarize myself with the situation more, but I just don't see it working. (Can you illustrate for me how his failure is based around Wynne's idiocy? I don't see how they would have been able to survive the blight and Orlais without Wynne and the Warden's intervention, but I could be not remembering things right.)

I believe Wynne threw a wrench in the alliance when she returned from Ostagar and spoke out against Loghain.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

ipgd wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I don't consider Uldred and Loghain a good example of a productive Mage/State alliance, because we have no evidence as to what they Chantry would have done when they discovered what was occurring. I'll have to finish my current Origins replay to familiarize myself with the situation more, but I just don't see it working. (Can you illustrate for me how his failure is based around Wynne's idiocy? I don't see how they would have been able to survive the blight and Orlais without Wynne and the Warden's intervention, but I could be not remembering things right.)

I believe Wynne threw a wrench in the alliance when she returned from Ostagar and spoke out against Loghain.

Mmm, but I don't consider that idiocy, so much as honesty.

Basically, Uldred was convincing the mages that they'd be siding with a good man and a stable leader, whereas Wynne provided the counterpoint, that they'd be allying themselves with a man who just got most of the Grey Wardens and the current King killed, who did not hesitate to let former allies die to further his own goals.

Which changed people's minds. I don't think it was dumb of Wynne to tell the truth of what happened... I guess that's where I was confused. Then again, I don't think that Thedas would have had a very good future at all if the Warden hadn't taken Loghain down, so I don't see the mages allying with Loghain as an example of something that "almost worked."

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 juin 2011 - 11:28 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I don't consider Uldred and Loghain a good example of a productive Mage/State alliance, because we have no evidence as to what they Chantry would have done when they discovered what was occurring. I'll have to finish my current Origins replay to familiarize myself with the situation more, but I just don't see it working. (Can you illustrate for me how his failure is based around Wynne's idiocy? I don't see how they would have been able to survive the blight and Orlais without Wynne and the Warden's intervention, but I could be not remembering things right.)

The Circle agreed to join Uldred and Loghain, until Wynne told them of Ostagar and her narrow misguided interpretation of it.

I am not saying Uldred and Loghain would have succeeded, considering that we are talking about a blight and possible Orlais invasion. I am saying this is an example of mages and the state being capable of forging an alliance and secretly organizing a movement, which you said they cannot do.

Essentially, I don't think that the allegiance between a single tower and a single state would accomplish anything remotely useful. I also don't think there's any rational way that multiple circles could have established coordinated allegiances with multiple states at the same time... for the same reason that Loghain did not already have the full support of Nevarra against Orlais - because things are just not that simple or easy to arrange.

Of course they are not easy to arrange. That doesn't exclude trying to achieve them. Perhaps Nevarra, thinking that Ferelden is a backwater (and rivghtfully so), never considered allying with them. They possibly require Ferelden showing itself as useful and willing. Perhaps Nevarra is too busy with the Blasted Hills, which we know is giving them trouble. Indeed, eveyrone thought Ferelden is a backwater barely civilized mess and it's only the last 5 years (prior to Ostagar), thanks to Anora, that Ferelden is gaining international respect.

In either case, an alliance is possible and mutually beneficial (especially if Amaranthine is rising), and the option should be explored and I doubt Anders would be able to grasp the geo-political context for him to even think about it. Had he tried to investigate the option, and thought it was impossible, then I might be less harsh. But he can't in the first place, hence why I am saying, he shouldnt' do anything.

As for not finding a rational way for multiple alliances. Simple. Circle A allies with State A, which establishes relations with State B, which itself is allied with Circle B. State A and B share common interests.
Simple, but not easy.

You keep thinking that the Circles have to be the key players. For me they are not. States are tghe only political force strong enough to challenge the Chantry and be able to establish something else later relatively easily. The Circles should be merely allies.

The flashpoint's the thing.

What kind of flashpoint is the thing.

There is a flashpoint that is blindly sending the world to war, with no clear plan, alienating allies and pushing mages to a corner. And another kind of flashpoints, with mages acquiring allies and alligning themselves to greater powers, adapting to the world instead of tryign to impoxe their vision on it (they are incapable of doing that).

And I believe mages, with patience, organization and alliances, can pull it off as part of a bigger whole. Magic is too small an agenda to survive on its own and will need to be patronized by above. Mages, specifically Lucrosians, should actively seek it. Orlais is weakening, which means the Chantry's biggest ally is weakening.

As for Kirkwall itself, I fully believe a much more powerful flashpoint could have been created and I do not think it's implausible or impossible. Hawke could have done it, even if he / she failed. Thing is the Champion didnt' even try.

Furthermore, I still question what the Circles thought was inspiring about all this. The whole thing was a debacle for mages. They were utterly pathetic, they didn't even last a few hours and on top of it all, resorted to the most bizarre form of blood magic that is utterly useless.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 juin 2011 - 11:40 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Mmm, but I don't consider that idiocy, so much as honesty.

Misplaced honesty (more like arrogant midsguided views) is idiocy.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I don't consider Uldred and Loghain a good example of a productive Mage/State alliance, because we have no evidence as to what they Chantry would have done when they discovered what was occurring. I don't see how they would have been able to survive the blight and Orlais without Wynne and the Warden's intervention.

The Circle agreed to join Uldred and Loghain, until Qynne told them of Ostagar and her narrow misguided interpretation of it.

I am not saying Uldred and Loghain would have succeeded, considering that we are talkign aobut a blight and possible Orlais invasion. I am saying this is an example of mages and the state being capable of forging an alliance and secretly organizing a movement, which you said they cannot do.

I never said they can't form any movment, simply that they cannot communicate with enough forces simultaneously to start one widespread enough to succeed. The only example you set forward is one that isn't widespread enough to succeed, and that would probably have resulted in Ferelden falling to the blight. 

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Essentially, I don't think that the allegiance between a single tower and a single state would accomplish anything remotely useful. I also don't think there's any rational way that multiple circles could have established coordinated allegiances with multiple states at the same time... for the same reason that Loghain did not already have the full support of Nevarra against Orlais - because things are just not that simple or easy to arrange.

Of course they are not easy to arrange. That doesn't exclude trying to achieve them.

{snip specifics}

In either case, an alliance is possible and mutually beneficial, and the option should be explored and I doubt Anders would be able to grasp the geo-poilitical context for him to even think about it. Had he tried to investigate the option, and thought it was impossible, then I might be less harsh. But he can't in the first place, hence why I am saying, he shouldnt' do anything.

As for not finding a rational way for multiple alliances. Simple. Circle A allies with State A, which establishes relations with State B, which itself is allied with Circle B. State A and B share common interests.
Simple, but not easy.

You keep thinking that the Circles have to be the key players. For me they are not. States are tghe only political force strong enough to challenge the Chantry and be able to establish something else later relatively easily. The Circles should be merely allies.

In your proposed scenario, you are telling a minority group that they should not take any action for themselves, rather they should simply wait for the mainstream to deign to treat them as allies. You're essentially saying "What These People Need is a Honky." (I obviously prefer the F&SF terminology for that scenario, but here is the obv tvtropes. The tropes aren't directly analgous, but they're close enough for government work.) 

I'm not comfortable with telling a minority group that they should not be the most active force in their own struggle, and that they should instead wait until someone in the mainstream decides to take it up for them. I think that's another point where we fundamentally disagree.

Nations have enough problems productively allying themselves against Orlais and the Divine as it is; to presume that several of them will simuntaneously be preparing to ally with each other and willing to consider allying with the mages and able to productively communicate with the mages all at the same time seems profoundly unlikely... without something temporarily disrupting the Chantry's control of the circles, again.

I'd say the odds of that happening are much lower than the odds of the Mages coming out ahead in the current struggle. I'd say there was only a <10% chance of what you propose ever happening, while the Mages have a 30-50% chance of coming out of the current struggle better than they went in. These are just my current impressions, mind you, not any concrete math, obviously.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
The flashpoint's the thing.

What kind of flashpoint is the thing.

There is a flashpoint that is blindly sending the world to war, with no clear plan, alienating allies and pushing mages to a corner. And another kind of flashpoints, with mages acquiring allies and alligning themselves to greater powers, adapting to the world instead of tryign to impoxe their vision on it (they are incapable of doing that).

And I believe mages, with patience, organization and alliances, can pull it off as part of a bigger whole. Magic is too small an agenda to survive on its own and will need to be patronized by above. Mages, specifically Lucrosians, should actively seek it. Orlais is weakening, which means the Chantry's biggest ally is weakening.

As for Kirkwall itself, I fully believe a much more powerful flashpoint could have been created and I do not think it's implausible or impossible. Hawke could have done it, even if he / she failed. Thing is the Champion didnt' even try.

Furthermore, I still question what the Circles thought was inspiring about all this. The whole thing was a debacle for mages. They were utterly pathetic, they didn't even last a few hours and on top of it all, resorted to the most bizarre form of blood magic that is utterly useless.  

I think we might have different definitions of "flashpoint" here.
The definition I'm going with this this - flashpoint: a point at which someone or something bursts suddenly into action or being.

A slow, carefully negotiated change is not a flashpoint... a flashpoint is a single dramatic action where everything suddenly changes. It's also a term very strongly associated with the sudden start to a war. So when I say "was a flashpoint needed?" I'm asking this: did something dramatic and sudden need to happen to shake things up? Did we need this war? Could the end of slavery have occurred without the Civil War? The answer is probably yes, but much, much more slowly. I'd prefer to have the civil war and risk the US splitting apart than not have it and have another few centuries of slavery.

I also think this conflict with shake out similarly to the Civil War. It may have started over magery, but as the fighting starts, allegiances will be formed based on other priorities. I agree that magery cannot survive without allies, just as abolitionism could not gain much ground as an individual cause without the conflict of the Civil War to galvanize other forces to take sides in the debate.

As for what the Circles found inspiring... I think it was the idea that no matter how good, pliant, and cooperative the Circles themselves were, the Chantry would always err on the side of Annulment. No matter how patentnly and blatantly insane a Knight Commander is, the Grand Cleric and the Divine would never move to replace her. All mages' lives are hanging on the idea that their Knight Commander will not decide that the action of one individual taints the entire circle. Their lives are forfeit the instant a Grand Cleric, Knight Commander, or Divine decides that something is their fault, true or not.

The Annulment of Kirkwall (successful or not) is a symbol of the fact that the system is so unfixably broken that no circle mage, no matter how upstanding or good or strong, is ever truly safe.

This fact, coupled with the fact that it was only the Champion of Kirkwall that allowed the Templars to win the battle, it's easy to see why the circles rose up. Without the Champion to side with the Templars, the battle would have been about even.

(The circles rising up when the champion supports them is even more logical, of course. But I assumed you only needed the justification for why they would rise up if the Champion assisted with the Annulment.)

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 juin 2011 - 12:43 .

[Amondra]

I tried reading all this to catch, but half way through I just threw my hands up and called it. I blame all this on a case of gameplay not matching story, and that the mage vs. Templar/Chantry rocky because of the lack of seeing it in the first game, but that could be because everyone was going 'Crap Blight!' so game two starts and all the sudden(mostly in the end) it is like a brick to the face 'Hey remember that one thing we barely touched on? Yeah....' I don't it would be as gray if they did the elves, we saw more of that in both games then with the mages. I also think they over did it with blood mages. I mean with them it was so you one agree with Anders they are backed into a corner, and fear will make us do things we would never do. Or have a more Fenris view and see it as mages are weak for the most part and things need to stay as is.

Really just not the best of storytelling. Who knows how long who has been wanting or doing what.

It's like Anders not knowing if he and Justice are one...no one can make up their mind in that world.

[KnightofPhoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I never said they can't form any movment, simply that they cannot communicate with enough forces simultaneously to start one widespread enough to succeed. The only example you set forward is one that isn't widespread enough to succeed, and that would probably have resulted in Ferelden falling to the blight.

The mages are not the ones who have to communciate with multiple forces. That's the job of states, and mages shoud allign with them.

In your proposed scenario, you are telling a minority group that they should not take any action for themselves, rather they should simply wait for the mainstream to deign to treat them as allies. You're essentially saying "What These People Need is a Honky." (I obviously prefer the F&SF terminology for that scenario, but here is the obv tvtropes. The tropes aren't exactly what I'm talking about here, but they're close enough for government work.) 

I'm not comfortable with telling a minority group that they should not be the most active force in their own struggle, and that they should instead wait until someone in the mainstream decides to take it up for them. I think that's another point where we fundamentally disagree.

Nope. I am saying minorites should actively seek to entice the majority to ally with them, by providing services in exchange for rights. Otherwise, the majority will not care and the minority will nto be powerful enough to challenge them.

I don't care what's "right" or "good". I care about efficiency. A tiny minroity like that of mages cannot hope to gain anything if they give the impression that they are the enemies of the majority.

Nations have enough problems productively allying themselves against Orlais and the Divine as it is; to presume that several of them will simuntaneously be preparing to ally with each other and willing to consider allying with the mages and able to productively communicate with the mages all at the same time seems profoundly unlikely... without something temporarily disrupting the Chantry's control of the circles, again.

The Chantry is not directly part of the equation in a potential coalition with Orlais, and alliances such as these are not possible without a shift in the balance of power, which is only now currently happening. Orlais is declining, and Nevarra and Ferelden are rising (ther latter only very recently). The context is ripe for it now (or a few years down the line), not decades before. Prior to the context now, Orlais never had to face two emerging rivals. Especially two emerging rivals with very convenient and advantageous geographic locations. 

Chantry control will automatically disrupt if strong states like Nevarra and to a lesser extent Ferelden say "enough". Add to that the disruption of lyrium from Orzammar, which is in Ferelden territory.  You don't need a Circle revolt to disrupt the Chantry.

I'd say the odds of that happening are much lower than the odds of the Mages coming out ahead in the current struggle. I'd say there was only a <10% chance of what you propose ever happening, while the Mages have a 30-50% chance of coming out of the current struggle better than they went in. These are just my current impressions, mind you, not any concrete math, obviously.

Obviously, and I wonder on what you're basing them.

A slow, carefully negotiated change is not a flashpoint... a flashpoint is a single dramatic action where everything suddenly changes. It's also a term very strongly associated with the sudden start to a war. So when I say "was a flashpoint needed?" I'm asking this: did something dramatic and sudden need to happen to shake things up? Did we need this war? Could the end of slavery have occurred without the Civil War? The answer is probably yes, but much, much more slowly. I'd prefer to have the civil war and risk the US splitting apart than not have it and have another few centuries of slavery.

No I do not believe a flashpoint was necessary, but if it had to happen, a better one was possible in Kirkwall, which was ripe for it.

And I find the comparision wi  hthe Civil war to be weak, but I already went into a debate about that and am not interested in starting it again. Suffice to say that it was a State (or a union of states) that did it. Not a loose band or minority.

 Without the Champion to side with the Templars, the battle would have been about even... (Or, in mage playthroughs, they actually did win.) 

Mages don't win even if Hawke sides with them. Orsino goes mad because he knows they are losing. Only Hawke goes alive, but we do not have any indication that mages won. At best, it was a symbolic victory, but a tactical defeat. At best, a few mages escaped the massacre. As the cutscene showed, Templars still surrounded the Gallows.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 09 juin 2011 - 12:50 .

[beckaliz]

I'm dizzy. @_@ So much crazy writing.

Someone got any kittens?


I'd love to join the conversation, but I find myself lacking sufficient skill at sociology and politics and all of that to add anything productive.

I do have to say, it's amazing how much people can take away from a game and the story therein that even the writers of said game quite likely did not think of. They did put a lot of thought into it, creating political structures and histories, but obviously you've gone beyond that.

Which, for the record, I think is awesome. If a bit much for me to fully wrap my poor head around.

Modifié par beckaliz, 09 juin 2011 - 01:31 .