2340 réponses à ce sujet

[MichaelFinnegan]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Any future solution would have to be long term by nature to be acceptable. As the the acceptability of both sides, i do not think you will ever please everyone. And since most sides seem to be comrpised primarily of idiots, pleasing them in their context is not something I would really care about. Function, practicality, and some moral/ethical consideration are what interest me.

Yes, I understand those issues. As long as the dynamism and equitability of things are considered and re-considered at every available opportunity, I think the system would do fairly well.

In any case, what you say above is what I've heard from others also - which is why I didn't express surprise at it. Honestly, I don't understand why you'd desire even a little bit of corruption in the system, whatever that might mean. Saying corruption with power is inevitable is an entirely different thing from what you're saying. I'm afraid it won't bode well for the system, if at the outset we actually work to undermine its very purpose, to whatever degree.

You are certainly much more an idealist than I, and many others. On this, i think we will have to agree to disagree, since it is a matter of perspective. i can only say in reality, when it comes to things like politics and the like, nice guys finish last. This is just a greater, more complex extension of basic human nature, something I feel is best worked with and not fought against.

I'm not so much of an idealist, but more driven by the consequences of events. I'm a strong believer that any action has costs involved, and the tricky thing about this is that some of the costs are not obvious, at least upfront. And the thing with any system is that once established, it takes time to de-establish it, if that needs to be done. The inertia goes both ways. This is why, when any system is being established, great care needs to be taken - and enough flexibility has to exist within it so that it can adapt to changing conditions. Change is the one certain thing in life, and, every step of the way, the system has to work with it, not against it.

Regarding politics, I think the trick with it is to keep it to as minimum as possible - limited government, more power to the individual, and so on. Even in Thedas, with the inherent threat posed by mages to the general populace, I think this is a better way. The reason is any action to restrict the mages will eventually have costs involved. Better to leave things to happen at as local a level as possible, so that the impact, if any, isn't globally catastrophic - give people a chance to work things out between themselves first, to put it simply. Certainly, I've argued with people in real life and online about the principle involved, to varying degrees of agreement/disagreement. And there are very few who subscribe to my thinking.

Morality is important to me on a personal, individual level. But I do not apply it on a broader picture farther removed from me the individual, which is why I find it has limited value when discussing things like politics and govornment. In fact, the greater influence morality has in a govorning system, the more worried I get.

I think that is true - every word of it.

That there are templars who might question the system as a whole is a given. just as there are mages who actually support the system.

Yes, it is anything but an easy situation.

But like I said, the only pausing meredith's final battle made me do was so i could headesk repeatedly while laughing.

Haha, okay. Sorry, I needlessly persisted with this.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 14 septembre 2011 - 08:30 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

RagingCyclone wrote...

Okay, thanks for this. The thing is, I perceived that the debate was using a simple example:
1. conquest resulting in slavery
2. a law that protected this
3. at least one person not okay with being enslaved.

So this is a simple example, and I figured to continue to use Rome and Caesar to just make a point.

RagingCyclone wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

Sylvianus and MichaelFinnegan-if you are going to use Caesar to base arguments on...please study up on history of the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire. There are differences in the laws and culture before and after the civil war which led to the transition from Republic to Empire. Thank you.

History is definitely not my strong point, but I guess you're right. But, in this context, in what manner would it help to do as you suggest? Do you find fault with either argument as a whole or with certain aspects of it?

In the case of the Republic, the laws and rights pertained to Citizens only with a definite class system in place. One could have been born in the Roman Republic sphere of influence say in Northern Italy, but was not a citizen, but also not a slave. An ingame example of this would be the elven merchant whose daughter was taken by the magister's son.While he had wealth he had no power. So if a Roman citizen so wanted he could claim the possessions of a non citizen. It often did not happen due to maintaining control and power over a region to avoid uprisings, but there were no laws against it either since a Roman citizen had all rights and authority above those beneath them.

This is going slightly off the debate, but, I see. You say a few things: that there was no laws to protect non-citizens from the actions of the citizens, yet abuses because of this didn't happen often due to fear of uprisings. Now, how did this come to be? Did this happen because the majority of the citizens were mindful of this uprising, or that there was an active guard protecting the non-citizens, even though there were no laws?

So in that regard some slaves lived better lives than non citizens.

I'd also guess this would've been extremely rare. Simply because, the way I see it, a slave is like a non-citizen, without any rights whatsoever - no right to leave his/her master, no right to own property, and so on. So a slave would've been at the complete mercy of the master. Yet, I remember that freedom could be earned - especially if one were to do well in the arena, which I suppose very few could.

Also, I suppose these outlying areas would have been burdened by taxes, to fund the Republic, and later the Empire, making the lives of non-citizens all the more difficult.

During the time of the Empire things changed dramatically as the Empire grew with the imposition of regional governers to maintain control over the various territories the Empire controlled. A governor could act authortarily as his own little regional emperor as long as he did not anger Rome. During the Republic this was not the case as the voted Consuls and the Senate held control over all aspects of the Republic including the territories under it's influence.

Did this also somehow change the kind of relationships that citizens and non-citizens held, relative to the State, since the outlying areas (conquered territories) now seem more independent somehow?

And I suppose the outlying areas, the conquered territories I'm guessing, merely under the influence of Rome, didn't have representation within the Senate during the time of the Republic.

Edit: I also forgot to add that during the Republic there were few conscriptions in the army. To gain power and rise to become a member of the Senate Romans often joined the army. It was professional. That changed during the Empire due it's expansion and sphere of influence. Conscriptions did then become common in the outlying areas of the Empire especially during it's latter years and before the split into Eastern and Western.

Interesting, thanks. I kind of thought it'd have been reasonable to assume that not all conscriptions would have been well received.

I think this doesn't contradict what we were discussing earlier, but, as I said, I was using this piece of history as merely a placeholder for other situations that could have taken its place.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 14 septembre 2011 - 09:16 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Irving needs to survive, and Shale's approval needs to be below 75. If Shale's approval is above 75 it will try to become a Dwarf again, and Wynne will accompany it to Tevinter, no matter her own approval.

Hmm, I see. That might prove to be a problem, not having Shale above 75... And I assume Irving dying triggers Wynne's First Enchanter epilogue?

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 14 septembre 2011 - 11:24 .

[TEWR]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Irving needs to survive, and Shale's approval needs to be below 75. If Shale's approval is above 75 it will try to become a Dwarf again, and Wynne will accompany it to Tevinter, no matter her own approval.

Hmm, I see. That might prove to be a problem, not having Shale above 75... And I assume Irving dying triggers Wynne's First Enchanter epilogue?

I know she is still offered the position if Irving's alive. Irving asks her to take over, but she refuses. But yes, if Irving is dead she takes up the position of First Enchanter.

[ejoslin]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Irving needs to survive, and Shale's approval needs to be below 75. If Shale's approval is above 75 it will try to become a Dwarf again, and Wynne will accompany it to Tevinter, no matter her own approval.

Hmm, I see. That might prove to be a problem, not having Shale above 75... And I assume Irving dying triggers Wynne's First Enchanter epilogue?

I know she is still offered the position if Irving's alive. Irving asks her to take over, but she refuses. But yes, if Irving is dead she takes up the position of First Enchanter.

Actually, if the warden dies, Wynne ends up going apostate, at least according to the epilogue slides.  If the warden is alive and Shale is not recruited or not Friendly, and the circle is saved, Wynne still goes to Tevinter.  If the circle was annulled, Wynne ends up staying at court.

Edit: Looking over the ending slides, to clarify. IF the warden dies: if Wynne is friendly, she turns down the position of first enchanter, hangs out in court for a year, then disappears.  If Wynne is not friendly, she just vanishes and the templars are told to look for her, but there was no active search.

Modifié par ejoslin, 15 septembre 2011 - 01:11 .

[phaonica]

ejoslin wrote...

Actually, if the warden dies, Wynne ends up going apostate, at least according to the epilogue slides.  If the warden is alive and Shale is not recruited or not Friendly, and the circle is saved, Wynne still goes to Tevinter.  If the circle was annulled, Wynne ends up staying at court.

Edit: Looking over the ending slides, to clarify. IF the warden dies: if Wynne is friendly, she turns down the position of first enchanter, hangs out in court for a year, then disappears.  If Wynne is not friendly, she just vanishes and the templars are told to look for her, but there was no active search.

Hm. It seems odd to me for Wynne choose to be an apostate. Maybe all the "disappearing" that she does comes 'round about the same time that all the Circles are collapsing.

[Quething]

ejoslin wrote...

Edit: Looking over the ending slides, to clarify. IF the warden dies: if Wynne is friendly, she turns down the position of first enchanter, hangs out in court for a year, then disappears.  If Wynne is not friendly, she just vanishes and the templars are told to look for her, but there was no active search.

I always thought that was supposed to imply her death. Just, they never found a body because of some Faith Spirit jiggery-pokery or whatever.

I mean I suppose in light of what we know about Justice that no longer really makes sense, but he didn't exist at the time the epilogue slides were written (and a lot of what we know about Justice doesn't quite line up with what we know about Wynne anyway).

Modifié par Quething, 15 septembre 2011 - 02:39 .

[TEWR]

Quething wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

Edit: Looking over the ending slides, to clarify. IF the warden dies: if Wynne is friendly, she turns down the position of first enchanter, hangs out in court for a year, then disappears.  If Wynne is not friendly, she just vanishes and the templars are told to look for her, but there was no active search.

I always thought that was supposed to imply her death. Just, they never found a body because of some Faith Spirit jiggery-pokery or whatever.

I mean I suppose in light of what we know about Justice that no longer really makes sense, but he didn't exist at the time the epilogue slides were written (and a lot of what we know about Justice doesn't quite line up with what we know about Wynne anyway).

how so?

[Quething]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Quething wrote...

I mean I suppose in light of what we know about Justice that no longer really makes sense, but he didn't exist at the time the epilogue slides were written (and a lot of what we know about Justice doesn't quite line up with what we know about Wynne anyway).

how so?

Anders presents his possession pretty much the same way Uldred does; "this is a blending of two minds, not a sharing of one body. There's no Anders or Justice, there's only Janders now," the same way Uldred says that he's no longer Uldred, but something new. Both seem very aware of their guests, even overwhelmed by them. Anders hears Justice's thoughts as his own, and can't necessarily tell who they're coming from unless you Rival him as hard as you can, but no matter what, he's always aware that his mind isn't entirely his anymore, aware that there's something about his thought process that's new. He has a certain amount of ability to communicate with Justice, even, since he can tell you that Justice doesn't like you.

If you Rival him, and encourage him to emphasize the separation in his mind, he becomes less and less able to tune himself in to Justice's mind, more and more able to have his own thoughts, separate from the union. As that happens, he becomes less and less aware of anything he does when Justice takes over, until he's actually blacking out. If you Friend him, and encourage him to embrace the union, he doesn't have blackouts; he remembers what he does as Justice, completely understands Justice's will, and has a degree of control when he goes glowy.

Wynne's possession works pretty much the exact opposite of that. Her relationship with her Faith spirit is pretty much like Anders on the extreme Rival end; she can't communicate with it at all, wasn't even entirely sure it was there at first, has no idea what it wants, what it feels, what it thinks about her. It's very much two separate beings with little to no influence on each other, and even almost with no cognizance of each other. And yet, when she goes all glowy and the Faith spirit "takes over," it's even more symbiotic than even highly Friended Anders; she's completely in control, knows exactly what she's doing and what she did once it's over, isn't even totally sure that it's the Faith spirit acting at all the first time.

There are a lot of potential ways to explain the difference, as there are obviously a lot of differences between their situations, but the end result is that I wouldn't necessarily expect them to even do something as basic as die the same way.

[RagingCyclone]

MichaelFinnegan--now that I'm back home and not on the phone. lol

First, the taking of slaves was mostly strategic. In studying history it's best to forget current affairs and try to find a mindset of that time period you are studying. Most cultures of the time (not all) had slavery in one form or another. When the Romans conquered another land, they would enslave the families of the leaders while usually just killing the leaders themselves. They didn't conquer to enslave, however. They would appropriate the existing slaves plus the aforementioned family members and then any warriors deemed a future threat. These last ones would be sent to the Circus to fight as gladiators. Often to avoid rebellion a garrison or two would be left, and the people were made to understand that they now lived in Rome. IE Roman laws applied, they could live their lives like normal, but now under Roman law and Roman protection.

As for some slaves living better that non citizens, while yes it was rare it did exist. An example, and this is true in all slave cultures, a slave of a senator would have food, shelter, clothing, etc while a merchant down the street would possibly have barely those and just surviving. Yes slaves then had no rights, but neither did non citizens realistically. And for most slaves it was the only life they knew. Again this is trying to think in the mindset of the time period and not by today's standards.

As for the difference once Rome became an empire, the Senate existed but the main powers remained with the emperor. It's entirely complex area to address to here. But to help in a perspective, the Republic existed from 509 BC to 27 BC, and the Empire ranged from 27 BC to 476 AD. (Not going to expand into the Byzantine Empire that existed until 1453 AD) And during that time the area held was greater during the Empire than during the Republic (mostly north and east)

[TEWR]

Quething wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Quething wrote...

I mean I suppose in light of what we know about Justice that no longer really makes sense, but he didn't exist at the time the epilogue slides were written (and a lot of what we know about Justice doesn't quite line up with what we know about Wynne anyway).

how so?

Anders presents his possession pretty much the same way Uldred does; "this is a blending of two minds, not a sharing of one body. There's no Anders or Justice, there's only Janders now," the same way Uldred says that he's no longer Uldred, but something new. Both seem very aware of their guests, even overwhelmed by them. Anders hears Justice's thoughts as his own, and can't necessarily tell who they're coming from unless you Rival him as hard as you can, but no matter what, he's always aware that his mind isn't entirely his anymore, aware that there's something about his thought process that's new. He has a certain amount of ability to communicate with Justice, even, since he can tell you that Justice doesn't like you.

If you Rival him, and encourage him to emphasize the separation in his mind, he becomes less and less able to tune himself in to Justice's mind, more and more able to have his own thoughts, separate from the union. As that happens, he becomes less and less aware of anything he does when Justice takes over, until he's actually blacking out. If you Friend him, and encourage him to embrace the union, he doesn't have blackouts; he remembers what he does as Justice, completely understands Justice's will, and has a degree of control when he goes glowy.

Wynne's possession works pretty much the exact opposite of that. Her relationship with her Faith spirit is pretty much like Anders on the extreme Rival end; she can't communicate with it at all, wasn't even entirely sure it was there at first, has no idea what it wants, what it feels, what it thinks about her. It's very much two separate beings with little to no influence on each other, and even almost with no cognizance of each other. And yet, when she goes all glowy and the Faith spirit "takes over," it's even more symbiotic than even highly Friended Anders; she's completely in control, knows exactly what she's doing and what she did once it's over, isn't even totally sure that it's the Faith spirit acting at all the first time.

There are a lot of potential ways to explain the difference, as there are obviously a lot of differences between their situations, but the end result is that I wouldn't necessarily expect them to even do something as basic as die the same way.

hmm..... I guess the simplest explanation is that Wynne's spirit was still in the Fade when it merged with her, while Uldred's and Anders' were summoned/sundered from the Fade. They were in the real world when they merged, while Wynne's was still in the Fade.

[Reno_Tarshil]

I'm about too in my canon mage hawke playthrough.

[Kaiser Shepard]

ejoslin wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Irving needs to survive, and Shale's approval needs to be below 75. If Shale's approval is above 75 it will try to become a Dwarf again, and Wynne will accompany it to Tevinter, no matter her own approval.

Hmm, I see. That might prove to be a problem, not having Shale above 75... And I assume Irving dying triggers Wynne's First Enchanter epilogue?

I know she is still offered the position if Irving's alive. Irving asks her to take over, but she refuses. But yes, if Irving is dead she takes up the position of First Enchanter.

Actually, if the warden dies, Wynne ends up going apostate, at least according to the epilogue slides.  If the warden is alive and Shale is not recruited or not Friendly, and the circle is saved, Wynne still goes to Tevinter.  If the circle was annulled, Wynne ends up staying at court.

Edit: Looking over the ending slides, to clarify. IF the warden dies: if Wynne is friendly, she turns down the position of first enchanter, hangs out in court for a year, then disappears.  If Wynne is not friendly, she just vanishes and the templars are told to look for her, but there was no active search.

Thanks. And damn, didn't know such small variations all had an effect on what happens to her after Origins. 

Any chance tthere is a huge possible epilogue list like the one on the wiki, only with explanations of what exactly triggers each epilogue?

[megski]

I know that the argument/conversation has moved to Wynne and such, but I am still stuck on 'the hundreds of mages' that are killed in the RoA. What hundreds of mages?! Where?! haha. There is no evidence of this! Could it have happened? Yes. Could it not have happened? Yes. There is no proof!

And I also don't understand this notion that all templars are evil blood thirsty mage shanking bastards. Keran wasn't a bad guy, he needed the money to support himself and his sister. Alistair wasn't a bad guy, he just got bounced around until there was nowhere left for him to go except to the templars. Gregoir was also a reasonable man. Not to mention Thrask who tried to help mages. My point is that there are good templars, they are just people. What people have to understand about Thedas, or the lands that we as players have experienced is that the rules that people live by are set forth by the Chantry, this is the way things are and this is what people believe. Humans anyway. So, I don't think the templar organization is evil, they are just doing their job and if people want to find fault with something, find fault with the chantry.

The only thing that ever pissed me off regarding templars was Anders in awakening. As warden commander, I don't like people challenging my authority. So, if I conscript some one, mage or otherwise, it is MY business. I assume since the numbers of wardens have increased in Ferelden, that I have more than enough resources at my disposal to monitor magic if I chose to. I just couldn't understand why Wynne never had a problem running around with me, even Morrigan. But as soon as Anders is recruited, I start having to cut down templars. With this being said, I gave him the damn cat, so if I say the cat is ok, where is the cat?!

[LobselVith8]

megski wrote...

I know that the argument/conversation has moved to Wynne and such, but I am still stuck on 'the hundreds of mages' that are killed in the RoA. What hundreds of mages?! Where?! haha. There is no evidence of this! Could it have happened? Yes. Could it not have happened? Yes. There is no proof!

Genitivi's codex references that there are hundreds of mages in the Circle of Kirkwall. This is prior to the influx of mages from the Circle of Starkhaven that happens when the Circle Tower burns down in Sebastian's city-state, so it's at least hundreds of mages (and it's the only Circle of Magi in the entire Free Marches).

megski wrote...

And I also don't understand this notion that all templars are evil blood thirsty mage shanking bastards. Keran wasn't a bad guy, he needed the money to support himself and his sister. Alistair wasn't a bad guy, he just got bounced around until there was nowhere left for him to go except to the templars. Gregoir was also a reasonable man. Not to mention Thrask who tried to help mages. My point is that there are good templars, they are just people. What people have to understand about Thedas, or the lands that we as players have experienced is that the rules that people live by are set forth by the Chantry, this is the way things are and this is what people believe. Humans anyway. So, I don't think the templar organization is evil, they are just doing their job and if people want to find fault with something, find fault with the chantry.

I (personally) don't see them as evil, but I think the Chantry and the Order of Templars are wrong about the Chantry controlled Circles. I thought Ser Bryant, the Lothering templars, and Ser Otto were good examples of templars. Even Knight-Commander Greagoir was going through turmoil over the Right of Annulment, in contrast to Meredith practically salivating at the mouth over executing hundreds of men, women, and children. I'm not the only one on the pro-mage side who argues that all templars aren't evil, but it's simply an issue of seeing them as wrong, and the Right of Annulment as a monstrous act when it involves killing people over an act that none of them are responsible for.

megski wrote...

The only thing that ever pissed me off regarding templars was Anders in awakening. As warden commander, I don't like people challenging my authority. So, if I conscript some one, mage or otherwise, it is MY business. I assume since the numbers of wardens have increased in Ferelden, that I have more than enough resources at my disposal to monitor magic if I chose to. I just couldn't understand why Wynne never had a problem running around with me, even Morrigan. But as soon as Anders is recruited, I start having to cut down templars. With this being said, I gave him the damn cat, so if I say the cat is ok, where is the cat?! 

The cat was left behind due to the fact that the developers couldn't create a cat for some reason, according to Gaider, and even suggested a "cat skull" staff at one point to compensate.

[Maria Caliban]

I love killing Anders.

[TEWR]

Filament wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

hmm..... I guess the simplest explanation is that Wynne's spirit was still in the Fade when it merged with her, while Uldred's and Anders' were summoned/sundered from the Fade. They were in the real world when they merged, while Wynne's was still in the Fade.

Or maybe the spirit possessing her is just different, akin to a powerful wisp spirit that doesn't have a great deal of intelligence of its own. Whereas the spirits we think of are like very singleminded humans, maybe this one is more like... a cat.

She did say it was a glowing nebulous entity, and wisps are glowing nebulous entities.

Though the spirit of Faith must be an intelligent entity, as it had been watching and protecting her its whole life, and was really curious about Wynne. Though cats are very intelligent...

dammit now I'm thinking Curiosity killed the cat.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

If Wynne was possesed by a cat spirit, she would have been the most awesome being in Ferelden. That she was not tells me this spirit was definitely not on the same supreme level as a cat. And since the spirit chose "The fade Shines Out my Bum" Wynne, it was obviously below the intelligence of a cat.

Just sayin.

[MichaelFinnegan]

RagingCyclone wrote...

That is a wealth of information. Thanks!

First, the taking of slaves was mostly strategic. In studying history it's best to forget current affairs and try to find a mindset of that time period you are studying.

I'm trying to be careful in not applying things out of context, at least in the discussions I've been involved in this thread.

But let us acknowledge this: there is no "one" mindset. There isn't one now, and there wasn't one then. Taking the issue of "freedom" during contemporary times, the alleged "one western view" on it is also non-existent. Ask a liberal and a libertarian - and each will tell you his own version of what freedom for an individual ought to be. And there is no reason to think that one point of view ("pov" from now on) now didn't originate or exist in some form at a remote time in the past, unless one can clearly show that it didn't.

So, yes, although one needs to be careful in not trying to apply situations/mindsets from our present day context into a world where none such might have existed or even were desired, one need not outright dismiss current contexts as "irrelevant."

And one reads history for all sorts of reasons, and I'd think it's unnecessary that one ought to read it keeping only the contexts of the historical time in mind.

Most cultures of the time (not all) had slavery in one form or another.

I'll take this opportunity to elaborate on something.

During the times of ancient Rome, there would have been the slave pov, and there would have been the master pov. And, to complicate matters, there'd have been one pov held by one slave, which wasn't probably held by another; and so too with that of any two masters. What this'd mean is that one needn't generalize things based on one slave's account of things or that of one master's.

Let's quickly relate this to DA2. A master-slave idea would be wrong to apply to templars-mages, because what a templar does is restrict some freedoms of mages, not outright enslave him/her (at least not all templars do this). So we'd have Anders pov (one mage) and Orsino's pov (another mage), which were very much different. And we have Meredith's pov (one templar) and Cullen's pov (another templar), which were again different.

And laws of the land(s), perhaps, upheld the action of holding of slaves. But this doesn't tell us anything about any individual's pov. One citizen of Rome might have considered holding slaves immoral but another might not have. And one slave in Rome might have considered his/her condition one of oppression, while another might not have minded so much.

When the Romans conquered another land, they would enslave the families of the leaders while usually just killing the leaders themselves. They didn't conquer to enslave, however.

Guessed as much. Which is why I thought it was more appropriate to say that conquest resulted in slavery, not conquest was for slavery.

They would appropriate the existing slaves plus the aforementioned family members and then any warriors deemed a future threat. These last ones would be sent to the Circus to fight as gladiators. Often to avoid rebellion a garrison or two would be left, and the people were made to understand that they now lived in Rome. IE Roman laws applied, they could live their lives like normal, but now under Roman law and Roman protection.

All of this tells us of what happened, and for what reasons, within that context. Again several pov's could be gathered from all this.

As for some slaves living better that non citizens, while yes it was rare it did exist. An example, and this is true in all slave cultures, a slave of a senator would have food, shelter, clothing, etc while a merchant down the street would possibly have barely those and just surviving. Yes slaves then had no rights, but neither did non citizens realistically. And for most slaves it was the only life they knew. Again this is trying to think in the mindset of the time period and not by today's standards.

When you say, for most slaves it was the "only" life they knew, I believe you're making a claim without proof. Surely, before they were enslaved then knew another life - which was either better or worse - and if there wasn't some active policy on the part of the Romans to suppress it, such knowledge, to whatever extent, would have passed down the generations among slaves. So I think applying "mindset" as some unversal to this is fallacious.

Yet, I'll acknowledge that some slaves might have accepted their conditions, because of fear or because it might have resulted in better conditions (such as maybe escaping the life of conquest and insecurity among barbarian tribes to one of relative safety in Rome or her provinces), and so on. But not all.

As for the difference once Rome became an empire, the Senate existed but the main powers remained with the emperor. It's entirely complex area to address to here. But to help in a perspective, the Republic existed from 509 BC to 27 BC, and the Empire ranged from 27 BC to 476 AD. (Not going to expand into the Byzantine Empire that existed until 1453 AD) And during that time the area held was greater during the Empire than during the Republic (mostly north and east)

Okay, this is purely factual, although informative. I'll read up on all that later; might help me some.

I think though the somewhat analogous situation in ancient Rome might be a good thing to consider to understand things, it is clearly insufficient to understand the events in DA. Especially for resolving the mage-templar issue. As I've noted before it'd be best to consider one event at a time and try to think through it, perhaps with the several pov's existing within the age and universe of Thedas.

That some people might consider to use words such as "terrorist" to lable Anders or the actions of Meredith as "genocide" are I believe entirely valid, depending on which pov that gamer decided to focus on, and how strongly he/she felt about the action. There are in-game reasons to do this.

At least for me, not getting into whom I might support, some glaring issues stand out - especially the Chantry's inability to improve the conditons of mages over the centuries, for whatever reason; Anders' action, supposedly representative of all the mages in Thedas; Meredith's decision to annul the Circle based primarily on Anders' action, ignoring Orsino's offer of surrender. This is my pov.

I suppose this is what I've been trying to say...

EDIT: Correcting typos, and one very strange formatting issue.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 15 septembre 2011 - 08:56 .

[levi.porphyrogenitus]

Both Anders and Meredith were not thinking rightly, since both were under baneful influences (Justice got warped into Vengeance, and the artifact was clearly messing with Meredith and everyone else it came into contact with). Just keep that in mind when trying to judge them.

As for the OP question, Anders dies. He set off a magical WMD with the primary victim being the one person who was most sympathetic to all sides and most capable of preventing a bloody war between mages and Templars. If he'd done it in Meredith's office, that might have been a little different, but instead he chose one who was not only innocent, but actually sympathetic to his own cause. Aside from being way too cavalier with lives, it was also down right stupid.

[Xilizhra]

If he'd done it in Meredith's office, that might have been a little different, but instead he chose one who was not only innocent, but actually sympathetic to his own cause. Aside from being way too cavalier with lives, it was also down right stupid.

Allow me to laugh derisively. Elthina was anything but innocent; by reason of egregious neglect, she shares guilt for all of Meredith's crimes except the Annulment itself. In fact, since she wasn't being maliciously warped by an evil sword, I'd say she's actually more guilty.

[EmperorSahlertz]

What crimes did Meredith commit exactly?

[RagingCyclone]

Xilizhra wrote...

Allow me to laugh derisively. Elthina was anything but innocent; by reason of egregious neglect, she shares guilt for all of Meredith's crimes except the Annulment itself. In fact, since she wasn't being maliciously warped by an evil sword, I'd say she's actually more guilty.

This is a very myopic view considering Elthina had more to worry about than just Templars and Mages. I don't understand why so many cannot see the bigger picture in this than just mages vs Templars.

[Xilizhra]

RagingCyclone wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Allow me to laugh derisively. Elthina was anything but innocent; by reason of egregious neglect, she shares guilt for all of Meredith's crimes except the Annulment itself. In fact, since she wasn't being maliciously warped by an evil sword, I'd say she's actually more guilty.

This is a very myopic view considering Elthina had more to worry about than just Templars and Mages. I don't understand why so many cannot see the bigger picture in this than just mages vs Templars.

Like what, the qunari? They're gone by Act 3. There's no possibly bigger issue in Kirkwall than the mage one.

What crimes did Meredith commit exactly?

Tranquilizing Harrowed mages, murdering nonmages who sympathized with them,  and I suspect many of her general methods of enforcement weren't strictly legal either. Of course, most of the legal things she did were quite evil as well, not least the Annulment.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 16 septembre 2011 - 02:42 .