1411 réponses à ce sujet

[FieryDove]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The incredibly thin Veil would've been a nice thing for the plot if they had done more with it and not left it to finding 12 codex entries.


And if they hadn't made every mage go insane when he's offered cookies.

Not to mention the cookies are stale and aesthetically displeasing.

[TEWR]

Not even Sten would want those cookies.

[GavrielKay]

Sabotin wrote...

Taking away someone's life should always be objectionable. Maybe you can decide that it is justice or mercy or whatever floats your boat, but noone should be able to talk about it as something natural and self-evident.

More to the point, is that I think the Rite of Tranquility has already taken away their life.  In that I don't believe being a walking talking soulless servant qualifies as life.  Life is more than having a heartbeat.  And when you have everything that make you an individual stripped away, that's a sort of death in itself.  And it's done to them on purpose, not through an accident of germs or getting old.

If we kept old or sick people alive past the point where they got any enjoyment out of life, just so that they could continue to serve us, I'd think that was vile as well.

[GavrielKay]

Harid wrote...

I don't believe Anders is telling the truth because my mage circle character as well as the mages in the circle did not corroberate his story and Anders is a proven liar.  Anders can't complain about solitary confinement when he escaped 7 times, he would not be treated like a common circle mage because of it.  I have no reason to believe his experiances are what all circle mage experiance.  Why didn't my mage Warden?  Why didn't Wynne? (I expect her taken Child to come out of no where here despite the fact that that is Chantry law that she knowingly broke)

People react differently to captivity anyway.  Anders could be telling the truth from his own point of view.  And that not be shared by people who've adapted better than he did to being a caged man.  The Warden doesn't count as s/he get out of the circle and have far more freedom than they ever would have dreamed of inside the circle.

We players are all playing the same game and yet seeing things very differently.  I see Meredith as downright evil, Elthina as criminally negligent and the RoA as a crime against humanity...  all based on the same game facts that lead others to say Meredith was justified, Elthina was a good person in a bad spot and the RoA a necessary purging.  We bring our own predispositions into everything.

Anders couldn't take the circle environment.  The circle isn't very flexible and its only way of dealing with someone like him is to punish him in an attempt to get him to either break or play along.  That he would experience the circle differently than someone like Wynne does not make it a lie.

[Harid]

It makes it a lie when he states that all mages go through this when we have seen proof that this is not the case. Which is what I argued from the beginning, when I called him a Liar.

I would expect him to be imprisioned for escaping 7 times. When you escape 7 bloody times you will get punished by it.  When you break the law you get punished.  His imprisonment, was a direct result of his actions of escaping.  He cannot whine about imprisonment that he himself directly caused.  It is the consequence of getting caught when you escape.  You know that if an innocent man breaks out of prison to exonerate himself, does it, and get caught, he goes to jail for breaking out of jail, right? 

He should not pass off his experiences on anyone other than himself though which he doesn't do. Given Anders' persistent indications that he was losing himself to Justice, and due to Justice generally being oblivious to things people consider to be regular things (calling ser-pounce-a-lot a slave when he was a pet), him becoming the Mage version of idol Meredith when you are pro mage, stating all templars want to enact the Rite of Anullment when we have proof to the contrary, him stating that he would never sell out himself and an innocent for personal gain when you give up Feynriel to Torpor, yet he has no problem doing the same in Act 3, I have no reason to take him at face value. He is a liar, and I stand by my claim.

And we are supposed to see things differently. That's the point. It would be more striking if Bioware weren't the equivalent of hacks at writing stories in both games, they need to lighten focus on characters and focus on coherent stories.

Modifié par Harid, 19 juillet 2011 - 04:00 .

[River5]

Sabotin wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Sabotin wrote...

Yeah, I know it's a stretch, but I'm just trying to bring the point across, that a person's life is for some people inherently worth more than their emotional state. So, there's no need to be amazed when someone finds it objectionable that Anders stabs Karl.

But life has to be something more than the ability to walk around and follow orders.  If you have no desire, concern, fear, love, hope...  what exactly is the point?  It's like being in a permanent coma except you're still able to be ordered around and make money for the people who put you in the coma.  That may fit the dictionary definition of life, but it isn't something most people would consider living.

I agree with you, but the issue remains - Is it the right thing to do to kill people in a coma that are little more than vegetables, all terminally ill people that won't live long anyway, those that suffer famine and will suffer through their life, the old that won't contribute anything more,...? The issue escalates to whatever level we subjectively set. When you put a value on life that is dependent on the value to you, it looses its intrinsic value and becomes a subjective thing that depends entirely on one's point of view. This puts power over life and death of people into the hands of other people. What is then the difference from the chantry? And we have come full circle.

Taking away someone's life should always be objectionable. Maybe you can decide that it is justice or mercy or whatever floats your boat, but noone should be able to talk about it as something natural and self-evident.

As someone who's been forced to live what some people (suffering from the same illness) have described as a "living death" for the better part of the last 2 years (I'm getting slowly better, but I still don't know how much I'll be able to recover)...  I'd say that I wished that sometimes, such choices could be made, especially if the person is still able to decide for himself or herself; and/or there is no further hope of recovery (which thankfully, isn't my case).

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't value life for the sake of just being kept breathing.

If this was your life: www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-393915/Trapped-bed-14-years-chronic-fatigue.html  , would you really want to keep on living it indefinitely?

Thankfully, her mother helped her die with dignity 3 years later, and was cleared of all criminal charges.

I know that condoning euthanasia can open the door for abuses...  But the alternative seems sometimes much more evil.

[Sinaxi]

Harid wrote...
You spoke to more people in the circle than your two examples.  What about Wynne?  Oh, stokholm syndrome, right?  Or Finn? OR Kinnon?  You are also ignoring that they wanted to turn Jowan tranquil because he was suspected to be a maleficarum, and was.  But he's the innocent in all of this!  Of course, though, you would ignore the mages that had no problem with the circle, as it would not suit your purpose of those poor circle mages.  This is also ignoring the point that vast majority of circle mages have no problem with the circle system told to us by the Fraternity system.  If the plight of mages were so poor, the Aequitarians would not logically be the dominate Fraternity body in Thedas.

Uh, except I did mention Wynne and Irving and did say that there are a few other mages you can speak to (albeit extremely briefly) during the Right of Annulment quest. If things were so happy go lucky in the Ferelden circle you would think that Abominations wouldn't be running rampant.

And since you want to talk about the Fraternities of Mages, I think it only prudent to point out that those old Codex Entries (from many years ago now considering DA2 spans 7 years..are you telling me new mages and new opinions have not arisen since then?) do in fact point out that the Aequitarians are dominant, but it goes on to say that Libertarian's make up a substantial amount of mages that you apparently think don't exist.

"Aequitarians are the dominant faction in Ferelden's
Circle. They promote a moderate and popular viewpoint that advocates a
set of rules and guidelines for mages to live and operate by.
Aequitarians believe that all mages should help people and follow a set
of ideals- to this end, they appear to be comfortable working alongside
the Templars."

Also, another reason the Aequitarians are the dominant force is only because they have allied themselves with Chantry Apologists:
"Loyalists follow the Chantry's
word as it is written. They are often called "Chantry apologists" for
accepting the Chantry/Templars ever-present observation. They are allied
with the Aequitarians."

Now, onto Libertarians.
"Libertarians desire that the Circle to become an autonomous,
self-regulating order without Chantry involvement at any level. They
form the largest opposition to the Aequitarian-Loyalist alliance. A more
zealous faction called the Resolutionists are an offshoot of the
Libertarians."

The Codex, from SEVERAL YEARS AGO, SPECIFICALLY states --
"So far, an alliance between the Loyalists and Aequitarians has prevented
the Libertarians from gaining much headway, but there are signs that
the Aequitarians may throw their support in with the Libertarians. If
that happens, many mages predict it will come to civil war among the
Circles."

You also apparently forget that there is an ENTIRE group of Mages that work outside the Chantry in DA:O, The Mages Collective. This group includes Aequitarians who have begun to agree with the Libertarian's views, and many mages that are not in the circle at all.

So, no, I am not ignoring the Mages who have problem with the Circle system I am just stating the facts which cannot deny that there is an increasing growing number of mages who are allying with the Libertarians, or who hold their viewpoints. In fact, in Awakening Wynne will tell you that the College of Magi is getting ready to convene in Nevarra because the Libertarians want to specifically discuss breaking away from the Chantry.

The fact that your view seems to simply stem from the Ferelden Circle (I say SEEMS lest you accuse me of disregarding more things you say and turning your words into a Strawman) is what I really do not understand. You say I am ignoring all these Circle Mages who absolutely love the circle, but instead I am looking at the big picture because the Ferelden Circle is only ONE Circle out of 14 and you SEEM to be basing your entire viewpoint of how much Mages love the Circle on simply that ONE Circle.

If you press Wynne in the Awakening's cameo it is very clear that the real reason Aequitarians are the dominant force is because mages are too afraid to stand up to the Chantry and most of the notable Aequitarians I know of are all older Enchanters (Wynne, Irving, Torrin..since not many are mentioned at all), and they are not exactly people that are going to be for a revolt. When you tell her the mages deserve freedom she says:

"The mages will never be free! The chantry will never allow it, our only hope for survival is to show them we can be trusted! Don't you remember what happened to the Circle in Ferelden, do you want to give the Templars another excuse to call for the culling of all mages?! This change cannot be forced."

PC asks why she insists on living under the Chantry's rule and she says "Because the only other option results in genocide." Yeah. haha. Sounds like they really TRUST the Chantry and the Templars, even though she is an Aequitarian. So, no, I definitely do not believe that all Circle Mages think the Circle is just fine and dandy, they PUT UP WITH IT because they know they have NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE. They are too afraid to rebel, they are too afraid to take the steps that are necessary. 

Modifié par Tidra, 19 juillet 2011 - 04:39 .

[Harid]

Tidra wrote...

Uh, except I did mention Wynne and Irving and did say that there are a few other mages you can speak to (albeit extremely briefly) during the Right of Annulment quest. If things were so happy go lucky in the Ferelden circle you would think that Abominations wouldn't be running rampant.

It was because of one crazy libertarian mage, and the crazy libertarians he taught.

Tidra wrote...

You also apparently forget that there is an ENTIRE group of Mages that work outside the Chantry in DA:O, The Mages Collective. This group includes Aequitarians who have begun to agree with the Libertarian's views, and many mages that are not in the circle at all.

The Mages Collective are Apostates.  Their opinions on circle matters are of little concern.  And like I've stated in many threads, we have no indication of Aequitarians changing their stance because Bioware rushed this conflict in the first place.

Tidra wrote...

So, no, I am not ignoring the Mages who have problem with the Circle system I am just stating the facts which cannot deny that there is an increasing growing number of mages who are allying with the Libertarians, or who hold their viewpoints. In fact, in Awakening Wynne will tell you that the College of Magi is getting ready to convene in Nevarra because the Libertarians want to specifically discuss breaking away from the Chantry.

Yet, 5 years after that meeting, the mages are still under the control of the chantry.  No civil war is spoken of or occurs, or is proven to occur.  Logic dictates the status quo would be upheld or Dragon Age 2 makes no sense in the context of this universe.

Tidra wrote...
The fact that your view seems to simply stem from the Ferelden Circle (I say SEEMS lest you accuse me of disregarding more things you say and turning your words into a Strawman) is what I really do not understand. You say I am ignoring all these Circle Mages who absolutely love the circle, but instead I am looking at the big picture because the Ferelden Circle is only ONE Circle out of 14 and you SEEM to be basing your entire viewpoint of how much Mages love the Circle on simply that ONE Circle.

We've only seen 2 circles, and this one had a bat**** crazy leader.  I have trouble believing that every circle was as heavy handed as the Gallows, or the Circle civil war would have occured a long time earlier, as it makes little sense that Fereldan is some sort of exception.  If all circles held the ideals of the Gallows, Gregoir would have annulled the circle no matter what you did in Dragon Age: Origins.  They had solid claim to do so.  Of course, if Bioware allowed us to see more of Thedas, one could more easily come to the conclusion that Fereldan's Tower is some kind of rare pearl in a pile of crap.  But they rushed this conflict, poking holes in it.  You seem to be basing your entire argument off of the Gallows to me.  What does that have to do with anything, exactly?

Tidra wrote...
If you press Wynne in the Awakening's cameo it is very clear that the real reason Aequitarians are the dominant force is because mages are too afraid to stand up to the Chantry and most of the notable Aequitarians I know of are all older Enchanters (Wynne, Irving, Torrin..since not many are mentioned at all), and they are not exactly people that are going to be for a revolt. When you tell her the mages deserve freedom she says:

"The mages will never be free! The chantry will never allow it, our only hope for survival is to show them we can be trusted! Don't you remember what happened to the Circle in Ferelden, do you want to give the Templars another excuse to call for the culling of all mages?! This change cannot be forced."

PC asks why she insists on living under the Chantry's rule and she says "Because the only other option results in genocide." Yeah. haha. Sounds like they really TRUST the Chantry and the Templars, even though she is an Aequitarian. So, no, I definitely do not believe that all Circle Mages think the Circle is just fine and dandy, they PUT UP WITH IT because they know they have NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE. They are too afraid to rebel, they are too afraid to take the steps that are necessary.

First off, we cannot come to the conclusion that only older members of the Circle are Aequitarians, as Uldred was an older member of the circle, and a Libertarian.  We have no basis based on lore to believe anything has changed with the Fraternity system, as Bioware could have mentioned that via the codex, and so I will not provide conjecture on your possibly's or your coulda's. 

Second off, based on your logic I'm supposed to then believe that all these mages that supposedly have their spirits broken are going to throw their lot in with a rebellion that either succeeded or failed (based on your choices) in one specific part of Thedas?  I cannot believe that.  How would that be showing the chantry that you should trust mages?  A rebellion directly opposes exactly how Wynne believes that mages should act in Thedas.  How would that show me the mages like Wynne even believe a rebellion has a chance of success, she directly tells you it would be genocide?  How am I supposed to believe that these mages that don't believe they even stand a chance against templars will think they can all of a sudden beat them, especially when you can aid the templars in not even losing in Kirkwall in the first place, and Kirkwall had templars taken out of play by demons and Blood Mages, something every circle will not have?  I'm supposed to believe that a philosophy of peace would randomly flip flop to war because of one oppurtunity?  I forgot when the Black Panthers influenced the peaceful members of the Civil Rights movement into a second American Civil War. . .Wait. . .

I'm supposed to believe the world of Thedas was light afire from this one incident?  Supposedly so.  Regardless of which, I have no reason to believe the mages are a united front as is.

* I don't believe I ever stated that all Circle mages are fine and dandy with their set up, but feel free to call me on it, I may have made that mistake. I just believe that in light of Kirkwall, most mages that hold Wynne's opinion would simply do nothing or surrender, and possibly aid in taking down libertarians for that matter.  I feel it makes no sense that all circles would rebel, when nothing close to all mages desired rebellion.  It's a large portion of the reason I dislike Anders, he dragged a large amount of people who had no desire for war into war to possibly get killed, and I believe even Anders states he should face Justice for what he did.

* Also note I never stated mages trust the Chantry.  I am not about to argue that point either.

Modifié par Harid, 19 juillet 2011 - 05:23 .

[TEWR]

Yet, 5 years after that meeting, the mages are still under the control of the chantry. No civil war is spoken of or occurs, or is proven to occur. Logic dictates the status quo would be upheld or Dragon Age 2 makes no sense in the context of this universe.

Just think that I should point out that the new novel Asunder (which takes place I think a year after The Last Straw) is going to explore more of what happened in Cumberland (If I'm remembering what David Gaider said about it)

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 19 juillet 2011 - 05:49 .

[Harid]

I thought the new novel was about Wynne's little boy, or something.

[TEWR]

It is, but Cumberland is going to be talked about in there.

[Sinaxi]

The Mages Collective are Apostates.  Their opinions on circle matters
are of little concern.  And like I've stated in many threads, we have no
indication of Aequitarians changing their stance because Bioware rushed
this conflict in the first place.

No, the Mages Collective is not all Apostates. It's not their "opinions" on Circle matters, it is Mages from the Circle whose opinions have shifted. I never said all Aequitarians changed their stance, but the codex specifically states that some have and that the common thought is that many Aequitarians will decide to side with Libertarians.

The codex entry on Mages Collective:

"Despite the Loyalists' grasp on the mages' political community, many
Libertarians and Aequitarians have begun to see eye to eye with respect
to the Chantry's role in a mage's daily life. A growing number of mages,
particularly those whose magic never strays from the Maker's mandate,
feel that the Chantry's constant oversight is a burden upon their
creativity and their very will, and one that hinders their ability to do
their work. These mages, along with a number of hedge wizards who work their
arts outside the Chantry's influence, have formed a shadow-guild of
sorts, a mages' collective, wherein members can submit requests and have
them seen to without judgement."

The Mages Collective IS comprised of members of the Circle, and also of apostates. It is not just random apostates that gathered together.

Yet, 5 years after that meeting, the mages are still under the control of the chantry.  No civil war is spoken of or occurs, or is proven to occur.  Logic dictates the status quo would be upheld or Dragon Age 2 makes no sense in the context of this universe.

My point isn't that they are still under control of the Chantry, it is simply that there are mages who actively oppose this, enough to warrant a full-fledged discussion about the issue in Nevarra.

We've only seen 2 circles, and this one had a bat**** crazy leader.  I have trouble believing that every circle was as heavy handed as the Gallows, or the Circle civil war would have occured a long time earlier, as it makes little sense that Fereldan is some sort of exception.  If all circles held the ideals of the Gallows, Gregoir would have annulled the circle no matter what you did in Dragon Age: Origins.  They had solid claim to do so.  Of course, if Bioware allowed us to see more of Thedas, one could more easily come to the conclusion that Fereldan's Tower is some kind of rare pearl in a pile of crap.  But they rushed this conflict, poking holes in it.  You seem to be basing your entire argument off of the Gallows to me.  What does that have to do with anything, exactly?

No, I am not basing my entire argument on the Gallows. I was saying that it seemed like you were basing your entire argument on the Ferelden Circle.

First off, we cannot come to the conclusion that only older members of the Circle are Aequitarians, as Uldred was an older member of the circle, and a Libertarian.  We have no basis based on lore to believe anything has changed with the Fraternity system, as Bioware could have mentioned that via the codex, and so I will not provide conjecture on your possibly's or your coulda's.

I didn't say only older members are Aequitarians, simply that the only members that are known to us are all older. I do not believe every single Aequitarian is an old person. There are very few mages that we even know of at all in Dragon Age, and even fewer whose position with the Mage Fraternities are known. ..."Will not provide conjecture based on my coulda's", um okay? What are you even referring to? All I said was that the codex entries state that the possibility of change within the Fraternity system is very likely, and has been talked about.

Second off, based on your logic I'm supposed to then believe that all these mages that supposedly have their spirits broken are going to throw their lot in with a rebellion that either succeeded or failed (based on your choices) in one specific part of Thedas?  I cannot believe that.  How would that be showing the chantry that you should trust mages?  A rebellion directly opposes exactly how Wynne believes that mages should act in Thedas.  How would that show me the mages like Wynne even believe a rebellion has a chance of success, she directly tells you it would be genocide?  How am I supposed to believe that these mages that don't believe they even stand a chance against templars will think they can all of a sudden beat them, especially when you can aid the templars in not even losing in Kirkwall in the first place, and Kirkwall had templars taken out of play by demons and Blood Mages, something every circle will not have?  I'm supposed to believe that a philosophy of peace would randomly flip flop to war because of one oppurtunity?  I forgot when the Black Panthers influenced the peaceful members of the Civil Rights movement into a second American Civil War. . .Wait. . .

Uh, the rebellion didn't "succeed or fail" based on your decisions, the rebellion is still going on in the epilogue regardless of what choice you made. Once again, I don't really care what it is you particulary "believe"
or "disbelieve", I was simply showing you evidence from the codex
entries and from Wynne's conversation in Awakening that not everyone
agrees with the Aequitarians and Wynne was slightly worried about dealing with the conference at Nevarra and its outcome, so she either thinks the Libertarians are becoming bolder or thinks they are gaining more followers, or a bit of both. Otherwise why would she be worried at all?

I'm supposed to believe the world of Thedas was light afire from this one incident?  Supposedly so.  Regardless of which, I have no reason to believe the mages are a united front as is.
* I don't believe I ever stated that all Circle mages are fine and dandy with their set up, but feel free to call me on it, I may have made that mistake. I just believe that in light of Kirkwall, most mages that hold Wynne's opinion would simply do nothing or surrender, and possibly aid in taking down libertarians for that matter.  I feel it makes no sense that all circles would rebel, when nothing close to all mages desired rebellion.  It's a large portion of the reason I dislike Anders, he dragged a large amount of people who had no desire for war into war to possibly get killed, and I believe even Anders states he should face Justice for what he did.

You can not believe that all you want, it's fairly clear from Bioware's epilogue that the mages did indeed rebel, as the epilogue takes place 3 years after The Last Straw, so the mage/templar war has still been going on. The fact that you think it's not believeable doesn't really matter since it's happening.

Modifié par Tidra, 19 juillet 2011 - 06:42 .

[TEWR]

I find it funny how Sebastian can say to Hawke when you let Anders live "You're the one that taught me its the ends that matter and not the steps you take to get there" yet he doesn't realize Anders' stunt was a step towards the ends. That being a better future for mages.

Sebastian basically said "You taught me the ends justify the means".

I'm seriously under the impression that he's just so traumatized he's not thinking clearly.

[LobselVith8]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I find it funny how Sebastian can say to Hawke when you let Anders live "You're the one that taught me its the ends that matter and not the steps you take to get there" yet he doesn't realize Anders' stunt was a step towards the ends. That being a better future for mages.

Sebastian basically said "You taught me the ends justify the means".

I'm seriously under the impression that he's just so traumatized he's not thinking clearly.

I can understand that he's upset because of how he cared about Grand Cleric Elthina, but she honestly didn't do anything when it was within her power to change things, and the Prince did discuss with Fenris handing over apostates in Hawke's group (which I'd have to assume would include apostate Hawke as well), so I didn't trust Sebastian. I wasn't expecting rivalled Sebastian to say that when the scene happened, but I wonder if he'll remain angry with Hawke, or if the writers will pull an Alistair and have him forget all it.

[TEWR]

I like to roleplay my Hawkes a few ways in regards to Anders fate:

1) They agree that change needs to happen
2) Anders does need to make things better. He did the right thing, but there's more that he can do.
3) Meredith's a looney
4) Hawke is giving Sebastian that final nudge to take back his lands, as he does consider Sebastian a friend.


So I'm hoping that Sebastian will forget about it and become DA2's Alistair.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 19 juillet 2011 - 11:14 .

[Rifneno]

Tidra wrote...

Um, ok? How in the freaking world can you prove that Anders is lying about how his time in the Ferelden circle went? Where is your proof for that? Did you see him go there when he was 12 years old in chains while his mother wept beside him? You weren't there. You didn't see it. You didn't see him sentenced to solitary confinement for a year. Your argument that Anders is just making up everything is the stupidest thing I have ever heard, as if the world of Thedas is completely set in the stone ONLY the way we see it for a short amount of time in our games, and absolutely nothing outside of what we saw could possibly ever be true.

Seriously? Your argument against Meredith's injustices is just "No, no, it's not true, ANDERS IS JUST A LIAR GUYS!" How utterly amusing.

It's only amusing for a little bit. Then it gets depressing. After that, you start wishing you had the last 10 minutes of your life back. I used to get a bit of flak from some other pro-mage posters because I'd give kudos to pro-templar players who made a thoughtful counterpoint... it was just always so refreshing after listening to people like Harid.

ademska wrote...

i'm not sure where this anders is a liar thing comes from anyway. the one proof positive lie he tells in the game is during the justice quest, and his mannerisms are incredibly obvious.

And if you question him about it afterwards when he's trying to get you distract Elthina, he'll admit it was a lie. Clearly nothing he says in his life can be believed because he told a lie once and admitted it an hour later.

Sabotin wrote...

Taking away someone's life should always be objectionable. Maybe you can decide that it is justice or mercy or whatever floats your boat, but noone should be able to talk about it as something natural and self-evident.

There's lots of fallacies there, but the most glaring is that if it's wrong to take someone's life, why is it okay to force life on someone that doesn't want it? Who are you, or anyone else, to tell someone what to do with their life?

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

And if they hadn't made every mage go insane when he's offered cookies chocolate

Great, now I've got the munchies. Thanks a lot, dwarf.

Harid wrote...

He didn't exist at the time, and based on this game I doubt Bioware planned that far ahead.

And yet you believe that the Circle origin story is a perfectly accurate representation even thought you don't believe they had a mage-templar war potential in mind when they wrote it (which would be pretty helpful for some foreshadowing). Irony, huh?

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

So I'm hoping that Sebastian will forget about it and become DA2's Alistair.

I can't believe you'd mention that parasite in the same sentence as Alistair...

[GavrielKay]

Rifneno wrote...

Sabotin wrote...

Taking away someone's life should always be objectionable. Maybe you can decide that it is justice or mercy or whatever floats your boat, but noone should be able to talk about it as something natural and self-evident.

There's lots of fallacies there, but the most glaring is that if it's wrong to take someone's life, why is it okay to force life on someone that doesn't want it? Who are you, or anyone else, to tell someone what to do with their life?

I still say the RoA took away the Tranquil's life.  What's left is a soulless husk that follows orders.  I see no moral issues with ending the servitude of the body after the person has been torn away from it.

[FieryDove]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


So I'm hoping that Sebastian will forget about it and become DA2's Alistair.

I hope so. If not maybe they will finally allow the MK to come out when dealing with him.

[Rifneno]

GavrielKay wrote...

I still say the RoA took away the Tranquil's life.  What's left is a soulless husk that follows orders.  I see no moral issues with ending the servitude of the body after the person has been torn away from it.

I agree. I think it's comparable to necromancy. The actual person is dead, and some dark ritual has their corpse roaming about carrying out simple tasks. But I know anyone who actually thinks it's "flat out murder" isn't going to see it that way, so I'm trying to make a counterpoint on the notion that the thing is still alive. But I'm sure that'll be fruitless too. =/

[Sons of Horus]

FieryDove wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


So I'm hoping that Sebastian will forget about it and become DA2's Alistair.

I hope so. If not maybe they will finally allow the MK to come out when dealing with him.

I would think that a much better "fate" for Sebastian, would be to merge with justice after killing Anders. I wounder would it be a better fit for him ?

[ademska]

i just think it's particularly interesting that @Sabotin and others have posited what they consider an objective moral standard ("all killing is objectionable") that is by all rights just as subjective as everyone else's statements. what is the measure of that life, then? sentience? intelligence? cognizance? fair arguments about the tranquil could be made for and against all of those. if it's just living and breathing, i doubt i need to elaborate on the logical conclusion of that standard.

what, exactly, is your goalpost for determining who is 'alive'? that's pretty much the whole point we've been debating here.

you can talk about the apparent danger of subjectivity and assigning value to life all you want, but you're just as guilty of it as we are.

Modifié par ademska, 19 juillet 2011 - 10:12 .

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I like to roleplay my Hawkes a few ways in regards to Anders fate:

1) They agree that change needs to happen
2) Anders does need to make things better. He did the right thing, but there's more that he can do.
3) Meredith's a looney
4) Hawke is giving Sebastian that final nudge to take back his lands, as he does consider Sebastian a friend.


So I'm hoping that Sebastian will forget about it and become DA2's Alistair.

I have to admit Seb's "now we will crush these mages." is awesome. 

Sadly I have to do that lame backstab to get it. <_<

[TEWR]

Ryzaki wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I like to roleplay my Hawkes a few ways in regards to Anders fate:

1) They agree that change needs to happen
2) Anders does need to make things better. He did the right thing, but there's more that he can do.
3) Meredith's a looney
4) Hawke is giving Sebastian that final nudge to take back his lands, as he does consider Sebastian a friend.


So I'm hoping that Sebastian will forget about it and become DA2's Alistair.

I have to admit Seb's "now we will crush these mages." is awesome. 

Sadly I have to do that lame backstab to get it. <_<

Personally I never kill Anders. I'm just telling Sebastian to go and take back his lands when I let Anders live.

[TEWR]

Great, now I've got the munchies. Thanks a lot, dwarf.

You're welcome, elf (I pulled a Gimli)


I actually have no clue what race you've played as.

I can't believe you'd mention that parasite in the same sentence as Alistair...

Ha really his reaction isn't all too different from Alistair's. Both Loghain and Anders killed someone very dear to the respective party member (Duncan and Elthina) along with many other people.

Though, some people will say that she brought her death on herself. Which is true. But I like to think that she knew she had to be out of the picture permanently and expected Anders or Meredith to try something, so she stayed. That the only way Meredith could truly be stopped was if she really went over the edge and into the abyss.

Of course, that's just me trying to make Elthina a likable character. But like I said, both Sebastian and Alistair aren't too different from one another. If Sebastian comes to terms with what happened and forgives Hawke, I'll be happy.

Otherwise, he's just a massive douchenozzle.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 20 juillet 2011 - 02:40 .