1411 réponses à ce sujet

[Harid]

Tidra wrote...

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

Ok?  We still have no idea how many mages are in this collective, how large they are, what their influence is, etc etc etc because this conflict was rushed, and the Mages' Collective was little more than a subquest in DA:O.

Tidra wrote...
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.

And my point is that those mages didn't matter because nothing came from the discussion other that upholding the status ****ing quo.  Which is in the statement that was quoted.  They brought it up and it went nowhere, and wasn't brought up again.  We know this because the Circle is still under Chantry control in DA:2.  Not only that, but the mages of Kirkwall don't even talk about any kind of Fraternal shift in philosophy at all!  All we have is opinions of crazy lying Anders.

Tidra wrote...
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.

So you agree with me that your conclusion was drawn poorly?  Because that is the crux of what I stated.  We don't know that only old folks make up the Aequitarians.  Because the Fraternity system is something Bioware should have elaborated, among other things, prior to this hackneyed conflict.

Tidra wrote...
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'll try to explain myself better.  Given the potential choice you make at the end of Dragon Age 2, (allying with Templars) we are supposed to believe that a rebellion based on a legal (successful) anullment occured, when no rebellions based on all the other legal anullments (I recall the number being in the 20 range) ever occured.  The rebellion generally only makes sense under the context of your choice to support the mages.  Because Dragon Age 2 was largely absent of choice, I am supposed to believe the worldwide simulataneous rebellion of something like 14 circles then occured, when all mages do not want rebellion, circles do not have the ability to communicate between each other independant of normal people helping them, normal people do not want to help mages, there is no mage leadership, there is no mage going to each circle and independantly liberating each circle, it just happened.  Now, yes, I know I have to believe this rank amateur bull****, which I stated, but it's just farfetched to me.  As for Wynne, her worrying is not important.  Her opinion won out in the end, as I've stated several times, and it was not contested until this problem in the Gallows.  We have no indication of the changes of the minds of Aequitarians because Bioware did not build this conflict properly.  Which is why I stated I would not build conjecture on your coulda and wouldas, you are operating under the assumption that the Aequitarians changed their minds, and we don't know that yet.  I'm pretty sure it'll be retconned to be so, but like I stated, it's such a fundamental change in the philosophy of Aequitarians as we know them (thanks to Wynne) that it will come across as little more than absurd.  I'm pretty sure I'll be told Wynne is some unique thought on the position despite the fact that Aequitarians have been united with loyalists for some 900+ years, sure. (for the Resolutions to ever be a majority, rebellion would have occured earlier, or we would have heard about it failing in the past.  Or there would be a codex entry about it.  Though I expect to hear some nonsense about Chantry censorship from Bioware if they even attempt to try and fix this for Dragon Age 3)

Tidra wrote...
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.

I stated that it's poorly written, farfetched, and written as so far as we know, to be a complete disaster for mages, so I have trouble seeing how people think things are magically going to work out for mages.  Then I remember, this is Bioware's forums we are talking about here.  I am not speaking from a pro Templar platform.  I am contending with the reality that Bioware has tried to create in the Dragon Age world, based on the way they have, up to this point, written this conflict.

Rifneno wrote...

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?

No, I believe Bioware should have written this conflict better in the first god damned place, so we didn't have two entirely different representations of 'mage plight,' one that is close to Harry F'n Potter and the other which is borderline torture porn.

Oh, by the way, I am not pro Templar, nor have I ever stated myself to be.  I am pro "everybody else."  Unfortuately, there isn't an "everyone else" option because Bioware is poor at writing grey, I mean, they were outwritten by Bethesda in Fallout 3''s "The Pitt".  Let that sink in for a moment, given the general "respect" given for Bethesda's writing.

Modifié par Harid, 20 juillet 2011 - 03:15 .

[Sinaxi]

Harid wrote...

Tidra wrote...

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

Ok?  We still have no idea how many mages are in this collective, how large they are, what their influence is, etc etc etc because this conflict was rushed, and the Mages' Collective was little more than a subquest in DA:O.

Tidra wrote...
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.

And my point is that those mages didn't matter because nothing came from the discussion other that upholding the status ****ing quo.  Which is in the statement that was quoted.  They brought it up and it went nowhere, and wasn't brought up again.  We know this because the Circle is still under Chantry control in DA:2.  Not only that, but the mages of Kirkwall don't even talk about any kind of Fraternal shift in philosophy at all!  All we have is opinions of crazy lying Anders.

Tidra wrote...
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.

So you agree with me that your conclusion was drawn poorly?  Because that is the crux of what I stated.  We don't know that only old folks make up the Aequitarians.  Because the Fraternity system is something Bioware should have elaborated, among other things, prior to this hackneyed conflict.

Tidra wrote...
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'll try to explain myself better.  Given the potential choice you make at the end of Dragon Age 2, (allying with Templars) we are supposed to believe that a rebellion based on a legal (successful) anullment occured, when no rebellions based on all the other legal anullments (I recall the number being in the 20 range) ever occured.  The rebellion generally only makes sense under the context of your choice to support the mages.  Because Dragon Age 2 was largely absent of choice, I am supposed to believe the worldwide simulataneous rebellion of something like 14 circles then occured, when all mages do not want rebellion, circles do not have the ability to communicate between each other independant of normal people helping them, normal people do not want to help mages, there is no mage leadership, there is no mage going to each circle and independantly liberating each circle, it just happened.  Now, yes, I know I have to believe this rank amateur bull****, which I stated, but it's just farfetched to me.  As for Wynne, her worrying is not important.  Her opinion won out in the end, as I've stated several times, and it was not contested until this problem in the Gallows.  We have no indication of the changes of the minds of Aequitarians because Bioware did not build this conflict properly.  Which is why I stated I would not build conjecture on your coulda and wouldas, you are operating under the assumption that the Aequitarians changed their minds, and we don't know that yet.  I'm pretty sure it'll be retconned to be so, but like I stated, it's such a fundamental change in the philosophy of Aequitarians as we know them (thanks to Wynne) that it will come across as little more than absurd.  I'm pretty sure I'll be told Wynne is some unique thought on the position despite the fact that Aequitarians have been united with loyalists for some 900+ years, sure. (for the Resolutions to ever be a majority, rebellion would have occured earlier, or we would have heard about it failing in the past.  Or there would be a codex entry about it.  Though I expect to hear some nonsense about Chantry censorship from Bioware if they even attempt to try and fix this for Dragon Age 3)

Tidra wrote...
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.

I stated that it's poorly written, farfetched, and written as so far as we know, to be a complete disaster for mages, so I have trouble seeing how people think things are magically going to work out for mages.  Then I remember, this is Bioware's forums we are talking about here.  I am not speaking from a pro Templar platform.  I am contending with the reality that Bioware has tried to create in the Dragon Age world, based on the way they have, up to this point, written this conflict.

Rifneno wrote...

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?

No, I believe Bioware should have written this conflict better in the first god damned place, so we didn't have two entirely different representations of 'mage plight,' one that is close to Harry F'n Potter and the other which is borderline torture porn.

Oh, by the way, I am not pro Templar, nor have I ever stated myself to be.  I am pro "everybody else."  Unfortuately, there isn't an "everyone else" option because Bioware is poor at writing grey, I mean, they were outwritten by Bethesda in Fallout 3''s "The Pitt".  Let that sink in for a moment, given the general "respect" given for Bethesda's writing.

Wow. Um, damn. Are you REALLY still on this tangent? Once again, I don't know how many more times I can tell you - I NEVER said I expected you to believe the Aequitarians shifted their positions, nor did I say they EVER DID THIS at the meeting in Neverra. I said, IT WAS WRITTEN AS A POSSIBILITY THAT IS RECORDED IN THE MOTHEREFFING CODEX. Then I said, that all this means is there ARE Mages who ACTIVELY OPPOSE THE CHANTRY, ENOUGH of these Mages to have at least SOME talking power at Neverra. I did not say ANYTHING CHANGED. I simply POINTED out a FEW things to you. Do I need to write in more caps to clear this up for you? Oh, and once again, I DID NOT EVER SAY THE AEQUITARIANS WERE MADE UP PRIMARLY OF OLD PEOPLE. I said the only ones WE KNOW ABOUT ARE OLD. IT WAS A SIMPLE FACT.

You saying your point is that the mages who wanted to talk about separating from the Chantry don't matter does not in ANY WAY retract from me simply stating THAT THEY EXIST. So WHAT the hell are you arguing with me about?!

The rest of your post is basically you crying about how you hate Bioware and the way they wrote DA2. So, all I really have to say is UMMM...U MAD BRO?

And, Anders isn't a liar. kthx.

[Ryzaki]

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

I really wish Seb could've just taken the shot. Would've had some nerve and would've gotten many kudos from me. 

[Harid]

Tidra wrote...

Wow. Um, damn. Are you REALLY still on this tangent? Once again, I don't know how many more times I can tell you - I NEVER said I expected you to believe the Aequitarians shifted their positions, nor did I say they EVER DID THIS at the meeting in Neverra. I said, IT WAS WRITTEN AS A POSSIBILITY THAT IS RECORDED IN THE MOTHEREFFING CODEX. Then I said, that all this means is there ARE Mages who ACTIVELY OPPOSE THE CHANTRY, ENOUGH of these Mages to have at least SOME talking power at Neverra. I did not say ANYTHING CHANGED. I simply POINTED out a FEW things to you. Do I need to write in more caps to clear this up for you? Oh, and once again, I DID NOT EVER SAY THE AEQUITARIANS WERE MADE UP PRIMARLY OF OLD PEOPLE. I said the only ones WE KNOW ABOUT ARE OLD. IT WAS A SIMPLE FACT.

You saying your point is that the mages who wanted to talk about separating from the Chantry don't matter does not in ANY WAY retract from me simply stating THAT THEY EXIST. So WHAT the hell are you arguing with me about?!

The rest of your post is basically you crying about how you hate Bioware and the way they wrote DA2. So, all I really have to say is UMMM...U MAD BRO?

And, Anders isn't a liar. kthx.

Your entire argument is based on the majority shift in the Fraternity system as we know it, we know the Libertarians are not a large enough minority to affect the circle, we know that the Aequitarians are the deciding factor on any kind of paradigm shift, we know that things have been this way for a long time because we have never heard of any kind of rebellion in the past.  We know this based on the lore given to us.  So how did the Libertarians become a majority?  Your entire argument is based on the predeliction of a shift in mage opinion that there is no indication of ever occuring.  Unless of course, you agree with me that the majority of mages did not want this rebellion.   You do not seem to by your caps lack spam and mouth foaming.  Either that or you simply do not care that that is the case, and if that's the case then there is a issue with your ethics that we will not come to any sort of an agreement to, we are wasting each other's time.

Most of the Aequitarians we know are old?  What does that have to do with anything?  If you weren't insinuateing anything, as you now say, backpedaling, then the point was pointless.   Understand?  That was my point, we don't know anything about the Fraternity system because it hasn't been written in the game.

By the way, we know "enough" of these rebellious mages resulted in jack **** because the system didn't change post Cumberland.  We were not shown anything remotely showing the vote was close, we did not hear any salty mages stating that Cumberland should have went the other way, we hear nothing of Cumberland, because as of now, Cumberland resulted in the status quo being upheld.

My point is that there is no mage majority that wanted this conflict.  Your point is it just happens regardless of majority, regardless of paradigm shift, and regardless of common ****ing sense, and I'm suppose to find sense in your argument because Bioware said so?  Ok?  Rebellious mages exist?  No ****?  We've known this since the start of the Mage Origin, and more importantly, broken circle.  We've seen how much escaped circle mages have ****ed things up for regular people through Jowan and Anders, and like all of Act 3.   I have made it clear, that based on crappy Bioware writing of this conflict things would turn out poorly for mages and I get told crappy 4 chan memes, and that I am a pro-Templar by pro-mages.  Go back to 4 chan.

Keep writing in caps by the way.  I find it amusing that I'm supposed to be mad although I haven't indicated anything of the like.  Don't quote me if you have trouble following my train of thought.

And I have more quotes to prove Anders is a hypocrite and a liar that I can post.  I think I've already proven my point, though, given how I have yet to get a well written retort on any of the bull**** he spewed from his mouth.

Modifié par Harid, 20 juillet 2011 - 04:30 .

[DPSSOC]

Harid wrote...
Your entire argument is based on the majority shift in the Fraternity system as we know it, we know the Libertarians are not a large enough minority to affect the circle, we know that the Aequitarians are the deciding factor on any kind of paradigm shift, we know that things have been this way for a long time because we have never heard of any kind of rebellion in the past.  We know this based on the lore given to us.  So how did the Libertarians become a majority?

Keep in mind the Kirkwall Annulment was the only one, far as I know, to be called for the actions of a non-Circle mage.  This wasn't like Fereldan where the Circle had become overrun by Abominations and Blood Magic it was a Knight Commander's response to an apostate's actions.  This could have caused those Aequitarians who were sympathetic to the Libertarian position to shift, similar to how the violent response to non-violent protests resulted in spikes of violent protest durring the Civil Rights Movement.

Also, more if you side with the Mages but even if you side with the Templars, Kirkwall shows that the Templars can be bloodied, even beaten.  This would have effected a shift in both the Aequitarian Fraternities as well as the unaffiliated youth.  Keep in mind that only Enchanters are part of Fraternity politics while there are far more Mages who haven't gained the title and apprentices in every Circle.  These unaffilliated, unrepresented youths, if they lent support to Libertarian Enchanters could form a force large enough to start the fight against the Templars and everyone else in the Circle has the same choice as Kirkwall, fight or die.

Or it's also possible that the Knight Commanders, on hearing news of Kirkwall, cracked down on their mages and the mages, fearing a repeat of Kirkwall under Meredith, fought back.

[ademska]

Harid wrote...

And I have more quotes to prove Anders is a hypocrite and a liar that I can post.  I think I've already proven my point, though, given how I have yet to get a well written retort on any of the bull**** he spewed from his mouth.

i bowed out yesterday because i had better things to do, but i'd love to hear these quotes, because the burden of proof is squarely on you.

when posting, please keep in mind that you must prove anders lied about circumstances and personal experiences within the ferelden circle. hypocrisy like his qunari or fenris quips are not relevant to the discussion. they do not point to a consistency in lying about his experiences, only to his own lack of self-awareness and his single-mindedness with regard to people who wish imprison mages, respectively -- and these instances are well-documented already.

so, by all means, fire away.


edit: also, please remember when forming your argument the bevy of allusions anders made during awakening, before the justice merger, to conditions within the circle.

Modifié par ademska, 20 juillet 2011 - 04:49 .

[Harid]

DPSSOC wrote...

Harid wrote...
Your entire argument is based on the majority shift in the Fraternity system as we know it, we know the Libertarians are not a large enough minority to affect the circle, we know that the Aequitarians are the deciding factor on any kind of paradigm shift, we know that things have been this way for a long time because we have never heard of any kind of rebellion in the past.  We know this based on the lore given to us.  So how did the Libertarians become a majority?

Keep in mind the Kirkwall Annulment was the only one, far as I know, to be called for the actions of a non-Circle mage.  This wasn't like Fereldan where the Circle had become overrun by Abominations and Blood Magic it was a Knight Commander's response to an apostate's actions.  This could have caused those Aequitarians who were sympathetic to the Libertarian position to shift, similar to how the violent response to non-violent protests resulted in spikes of violent protest durring the Civil Rights Movement.

Also, more if you side with the Mages but even if you side with the Templars, Kirkwall shows that the Templars can be bloodied, even beaten.  This would have effected a shift in both the Aequitarian Fraternities as well as the unaffiliated youth.  Keep in mind that only Enchanters are part of Fraternity politics while there are far more Mages who haven't gained the title and apprentices in every Circle.  These unaffilliated, unrepresented youths, if they lent support to Libertarian Enchanters could form a force large enough to start the fight against the Templars and everyone else in the Circle has the same choice as Kirkwall, fight or die.

Or it's also possible that the Knight Commanders, on hearing news of Kirkwall, cracked down on their mages and the mages, fearing a repeat of Kirkwall under Meredith, fought back.

This is conjecture. This is going to lead this thread down a path I do not wish to go down, so I am not going to go any further than this post on the matter, as I've seen this before in every one of these threads.  We don't know of anything here as so far as what we've been told to be true.

But to your point one, spikes are different than an entire movement predicated on the actions of this Circle.  I could stomach spikes in mage towers outbreak, but this is full on rebellion of every circle.  The spikes that occured during to the civil rights movement did not shift the Civil Rights movement into full on rebelllion of the United States, because it would have been a fundamental paradigm shift of the entire movement.  So then, mages who believe they should work to get the Chantry to trust them are simply going to rebel, directly impeding that trust?  I made that past point in this thread already.  I can't recall it ever happening, even the Servile Rebellions were generally conflicts that spread through active liberation by the fringe element, rather than just happening through the actions of one area, people who have and are used to the status quo do not generally rebel out of nowhere from one action, heinous or no.

Secondly, that doesn't matter when people like Wynne for instance have stated that rebelling against the Templars would result in genocide.  It's too much of a fundamental shift in her train of thought for me to believe it to be so.  Rebellion goes against every rule in the circle.   Now yes, Wynne is one person, so if the Aequitarians have fragmented, that is something we should have been told as it aids plausibility of full out rebellion.

Bloodied?  So what?  There are rebellions throughout history that have shown that the majority can be bloodied and they still don't result in full rebellion because rebellion takes organization, something this movement does not have.  We know the last thing didn't happen as the Templars are rebelling alongside mages.  Even if it happened, you expect me to believe that even rational minded templars like Gregior did this?  All 13 circles did this?  It's too fartetched.

There are a lot of things that are possible to have occured.  And Bioware should have taken that under consideration to make this rebellion look like something that would not run out of steam due to lack of support, organization, and tons of other issues with this rebellion that have not been elaborated.  How a fringe element of a fringe element became a majority is an important issue to tie to the plausibility of a full on mage rebellion, and it is something that was neccessary to be put in the game.

Modifié par Harid, 20 juillet 2011 - 05:09 .

[Harid]

ademska wrote...

Harid wrote...

And I have more quotes to prove Anders is a hypocrite and a liar that I can post.  I think I've already proven my point, though, given how I have yet to get a well written retort on any of the bull**** he spewed from his mouth.

i bowed out yesterday because i had better things to do, but i'd love to hear these quotes, because the burden of proof is squarely on you.

when posting, please keep in mind that you must prove anders lied about circumstances and personal experiences within the ferelden circle. hypocrisy like his qunari or fenris quips are not relevant to the discussion. they do not point to a consistency in lying about his experiences, only to his own lack of self-awareness and his single-mindedness with regard to people who wish imprison mages, respectively -- and these instances are well-documented already.

so, by all means, fire away.


edit: also, please remember when forming your argument the bevy of allusions anders made during awakening, before the justice merger, to conditions within the circle.

I already stated that Anders would not have the same experiances as a common circle mage due to the fact that he escaped several times.  I also stated that I have no problem with him saying that he went through these troubles, I have issues when he claims the majority of the circle went through what he went through, as that was patently false.  I stated this a day  ago.  You can read my posts to see the points I have made, but as I have no desire or obligation to jump through your little hoops, to put it succintly. . .no.  I am not arguing for a point I didn't make.  The point I made is that I have no reason to trust a liar when it comes to the plight of mages.  Keyword mages.  As in a majority of them.   Not mage.  As in Anders himself.

Modifié par Harid, 20 juillet 2011 - 05:13 .

[ademska]

Harid wrote...

I already stated that Anders would not have the same experiances as a common circle mage due to the fact that he escaped several times.  I also stated that I have no problem with him saying that he went through these troubles, I have issues when he claims the majority of the circle went through what he went through, as that was patently false.  I stated this a day  ago.  You can read my posts to see the points I have made, but as I have no desire or obligation to jump through your little hoops, to put it succintly. . .no.  I am not arguing for a point I didn't make.  The point I made is that I have no reason to trust a liar when it comes to the plight of mages.  Keyword mages.  As in a majority of them.   Not mage.  As in Anders himself.

you said you have quotes that prove anders is a liar and a hypocrite.

what you have there ^^^^ is pure assumption that anders' statements and experiences are isolated and circumstantial. "patently false", how so? what evidence do you have? people have already provided examples of abuse during the mage origin in the ferelden circle, to say nothing of the non-anders accounts of abuse in kirkwall.

anders has no history that you've yet shown me of lying about conditions in the ferelden circle. you've stated that he's a "crazy liar", but give me some tangible proof.

i'm not asking you to jump through hoops; i was only preemptively debunking irrelevant arguments.

[GavrielKay]

Harid wrote...
Because Dragon Age 2 was largely absent of choice, I am supposed to believe the worldwide simulataneous rebellion of something like 14 circles then occured, when all mages do not want rebellion, circles do not have the ability to communicate between each other independant of normal people helping them, normal people do not want to help mages, there is no mage leadership, there is no mage going to each circle and independantly liberating each circle, it just happened.  Now, yes, I know I have to believe this rank amateur bull****, which I stated, but it's just farfetched to me.

I agree completely that it isn't terribly believable that all of the circles rose up due to Kirkwall, but you make some claims that are not necessarily true. 

We don't know if the mages can communicate between circles, we do know that at least some normal people would want to help the mages (as we encounter some of them) and who knows what sort of leadership sprung up in the years between Kirkwall and Varric's story.  If it were a novel, the critics would poke holes in the story without much trouble, but you don't have to make it worse by making assumptions that put it in an even worse light.

Playing DA2 is a bit like watching a movie.  You always feel the hand of the writers guiding you where you're supposed to go and it isn't the best gaming experience.  However, they do put in little tidbits that the player can choose to interpret as supporting the story if you care to.

[VheodTh]

when you sided with mages, Orsino told the remaining mages to flee from the battle and spread the word of what happened in the kirkwall circle. So, seems like they got away succesfully and there were no circle that could tolerate what happened in kirkwall.

Modifié par VheodTh, 20 juillet 2011 - 06:30 .

[Harid]

GavrielKay wrote...

Harid wrote...
Because Dragon Age 2 was largely absent of choice, I am supposed to believe the worldwide simulataneous rebellion of something like 14 circles then occured, when all mages do not want rebellion, circles do not have the ability to communicate between each other independant of normal people helping them, normal people do not want to help mages, there is no mage leadership, there is no mage going to each circle and independantly liberating each circle, it just happened.  Now, yes, I know I have to believe this rank amateur bull****, which I stated, but it's just farfetched to me.

I agree completely that it isn't terribly believable that all of the circles rose up due to Kirkwall, but you make some claims that are not necessarily true. 

We don't know if the mages can communicate between circles, we do know that at least some normal people would want to help the mages (as we encounter some of them) and who knows what sort of leadership sprung up in the years between Kirkwall and Varric's story.  If it were a novel, the critics would poke holes in the story without much trouble, but you don't have to make it worse by making assumptions that put it in an even worse light.

Playing DA2 is a bit like watching a movie.  You always feel the hand of the writers guiding you where you're supposed to go and it isn't the best gaming experience.  However, they do put in little tidbits that the player can choose to interpret as supporting the story if you care to.

As far as we know due to information given to us by the game, and through lore, everything I have said is true.  While there are possibilities of anything, Bioware did not write those possiblities into the game, and as such have constructed an implausible conflict.

A smattering of support from a few templars is not what I am talking about.  I am talking of movements.   Evidence that normal Andrastians believe and openly support lightening the condemnation of mages.  In both games, we've only seen the common man fear mages, and we have no indication that there is any popular (i.e majority) support to free mages by the common man.  The people did not even stand up for the Hero of ****ing Fereldan ( if s/he was a Mage) to make sure the Boon occured.  As such, this conflict has not been show to us to be supported by anyone, and the common man would not aid mages in this conflict save under duress, which is what makes it implausible for this conflict to have spread as it did.  It doesn't help that mages kill regular people that support them in DA:2 because they are crazy either.  These people would be used as examples as to the results of siding with mages.

Leadership of a mage rebellion was something that should have been shown to us, prior to the rebellion, as it gives reason to believe the rebellion would have legs to stand on through that leadership.  Mages have none, and as far as we have seen have no long term plan in this conflict outside of freedom.  Which is fine, I suppose, but then I have no other expectation than them being crushed while the common man applauds it and gives into the need for blood through the innocent people that will be killed in this struggle, with a clear and obvious scapegoat staring right at them, with bloodied hand. (I'm talking about Mages here.)

Modifié par Harid, 20 juillet 2011 - 07:09 .

[FieryDove]

Sons of Horus wrote...

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 ?

No. Once the GC died he loses all sense.

"The Divine can't march on Kirkwall! Innocents will die!"
"I will march on Kirkwall, innocents will die! And Anders...hah"


Justice deserves better anyhow.

[Rifneno]

Sons of Horus wrote...

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 ?

That's actually a great poetic justice (no pun intended). I really like that idea.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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

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

Whew. I thought for a second there you were calling Legion an elf. Not cool. I usually play humans. Sometimes elves but only city or circle. Not a fan of the Dalish at all. There's some good ones, such as Lanaya. But there's way too many self-rightous jackasses, not to mention scum like Velanna. As for dwarves, no magic makes me a sad panda and their culture... that may actually be the worst one on Thedas. Which is saying a tremendous amount. The only one that may, and I stress may, be worse is Tevinter.

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.

Duncan never peached to Alistair that revenge is wrong and murder is never justice. Alistair never harassed Morrigan to forgive Flemeth for trying to steal her body. And Hawke wasn't trying to make Anders a prince of Starkhaven. The situations have little in common, as do the characters. Sebastian is as he always has been: a puddle of hypocrisy so massive he can be seen from orbit.

And I like this quote from Elthina, "*throwing her hands in the air with exasperation and annoyance* And here's Hawke. Come to goad you into further heroics, no doubt." after the only "heroics" Hawke had "goaded" him into was his own side-quest, Repentance, which Hawke turned down but Elthina hax0red into the quest journal anyway. Have I mentioned lately that I hate that gorgon?

Harid wrote...

No, I believe Bioware should have written this conflict better in the first god damned place, so we didn't have two entirely different representations of 'mage plight,' one that is close to Harry F'n Potter and the other which is borderline torture porn.

So is it Bioware's fault for not planting the proper foreshadowing in the Ferelden Circle, or is Anders a lying bastard? They're mutually exclusive. You can't say Anders was lying because the Ferelden Circle looked happy and then blast Bioware for writing the Ferelden Circle without the abuse going on. If Anders was lying, then they wrote it right to begin with. If they wrote it too sunshine and rainbows and then retconned it behind our backs, then Anders isn't lying.

This is conjecture.

Welcome to BSN. 

[Gervaise]

Hello, I'm new to this post and your argument I realise but I thought I would just mention one important point with regard to what might have caused the breakdown in faith in the Chantry by both Templars as well as mages.  When I played through the end last night, siding with mages and letting Anders live, when we have our final conversation he invoked the blessing of Andraste and the Maker on our endeavours.  Everyone present witnessed this and despite the Orsino cut scene, the fact is that practically every mage in that room, apart from Orsino himself, survived the following encounter because I very deliberately used myself as a human shield to protect them from the advancing Templars and made frequent use of the spell, Fist of the Maker, to pummel them into submission.   The introduction of the Force Mage category and the title of the spell I think points to something in Biowares thinking.    When we confront Meredith, she calls on the Maker to assist her and fails.  Clearly her power is demonic but the Champion has the Maker's blessing.  This fact is witnessed by a large number of Templars.  Even if the mages ability to move around is limited, the Templars are not and large numbers are subsequently drafted into Kirkwall to restore order.  So the story passes on with them and the mages I succeeded in saving.    Didn't the actions and teaching of one slave bring the mighty Imperium to its knees, even if she did have the assistance of the aftermath of a Blight and the backing of her husband's army?  
You see contrary to the original post, Anders did not act in the way he did because he did not believe in the Maker or the teaching of Andraste  but because he feels the Chantry do not embody those teachings.     The victory of the Champion would appear to endorse that view both in his mind and many others.

[TEWR]

Fist of the Maker is just a name of a spell. It's not indicative of the Maker's blessing.

However the rest I agree with, as for the longest time the mages believed that if they did fight back they'd all die. But Hawke's victory proved that fighting back against all odds doesn't mean you will die.

Even a pro-templar Hawke is unable to kill all the mages, as word of the slaughter spread to the other Circles.

[TEWR]

Rifneno wrote...

Whew. I thought for a second there you were calling Legion an elf. Not cool. I usually play humans. Sometimes elves but only city or circle. Not a fan of the Dalish at all. There's some good ones, such as Lanaya. But there's way too many self-rightous jackasses, not to mention scum like Velanna. As for dwarves, no magic makes me a sad panda and their culture... that may actually be the worst one on Thedas. Which is saying a tremendous amount. The only one that may, and I stress may, be worse is Tevinter.

The only thing I hate about the Dwarves is how Xanthos Aeducan couldn't take the throne in DAO. That really pissed me off, as he would've done great things to bring the Dwarves into a Golden Age. Bhelen's a hack in comparison.

It would've been nice if each Origin story kinda gave you a specific extra.

Human Nobles could get a chance to storm Highever and retake it.

Dwarf Nobles could take the throne of Orzammar.


....that's all I got =/

I also want to see some Dwarves with Scottish accents. Have a Gimli in the game.

[Gervaise]

I didn't mean I needed the Maker's blessing to use the spell, just that it is significant that the spell is given that name.  What I was referring to is that Meredith calls on the Maker and clearly is not answered and at the very end even starts to question herself - listen to her rantings as she finally does ask if she is doing the right thing, because clearly by her and in fact Templar thinking, if her power truly came from the Maker, we could not have defeated her in the way we did.  In fact Cullen and Carver have already acknowledged this before the battle when they stand to defend me.  Meanwhile the mages in the hall have slipped out and escaped whilst the Templars were otherwise engaged and they clearly witnessed Anders conversation the subsequent encounter with the Templars and even if they know the Fist of the Maker is just the name of a spell, I am sure at least some of them would appreciate the propaganda value of highlighting which spell brought the Templars to their knees.  Like Anders many of them probably believe wholeheartedly in the Maker but have started to question the Chantry version of Andraste's teaching.   Again most Templars are genuinely devout so they have not lost their faith in the Maker, only in the Chantry. 

[Harid]

I always thought the Fist of the Maker as a homage to BG:2's Bigby's Crushing/Grasping Hand, and nothing more.

[Major Crackhead]

Hey, I hate religion. That doesn't mean I go around blowing up churches.

Anders may have done the right thing, but that doesn't mean I agree with his course of action. Also, Anders himself believes in The Maker, so I don't think this topic really makes any sense...

[GavrielKay]

Harid wrote...
As far as we know due to information given to us by the game, and through lore, everything I have said is true.  While there are possibilities of anything, Bioware did not write those possiblities into the game, and as such have constructed an implausible conflict.

A smattering of support from a few templars is not what I am talking about.  I am talking of movements.   Evidence that normal Andrastians believe and openly support lightening the condemnation of mages.  In both games, we've only seen the common man fear mages, and we have no indication that there is any popular (i.e majority) support to free mages by the common man.  The people did not even stand up for the Hero of ****ing Fereldan ( if s/he was a Mage) to make sure the Boon occured.  As such, this conflict has not been show to us to be supported by anyone, and the common man would not aid mages in this conflict save under duress, which is what makes it implausible for this conflict to have spread as it did.  It doesn't help that mages kill regular people that support them in DA:2 because they are crazy either.  These people would be used as examples as to the results of siding with mages.

Leadership of a mage rebellion was something that should have been shown to us, prior to the rebellion, as it gives reason to believe the rebellion would have legs to stand on through that leadership.  Mages have none, and as far as we have seen have no long term plan in this conflict outside of freedom.  Which is fine, I suppose, but then I have no other expectation than them being crushed while the common man applauds it and gives into the need for blood through the innocent people that will be killed in this struggle, with a clear and obvious scapegoat staring right at them, with bloodied hand. (I'm talking about Mages here.)

It is one thing to say it should have been shown and another to say that it couldn't possibly have been in their minds when they wrote the story.  I agree that we should have been shown much more on all sides, but geez, you're just determined to find fault where you could instead choose to take some hints and run with it. 

There are normal people who support the mages.  There doesn't have to be a large number of them for them to spread the word.  We had the one lady who gave us a few mage helping quests.  Fereldens who were willing to attack Hawke when they thought we were going to harm Anders.  The lady who was feeding her cousing before being attacked by Templars.  The De Launcets who wanted us to help save their son.  Those are common folk who would support the mages.

You assume that there is no leadership because we weren't shown it, but you could also assume that leadership sprang up during the rebellion and thus was outside the game time frame.

In short, I find plenty of faults with the game, but I'm not determined to invent a few more where I can take some hints from in game content and fill in a few blanks with my imagination.

[Walrusninja]

Anders did probably the worst possible thing he could've, he was a total moron, they ruined his character.

Basically it came down to impatience and ignorance. He was blinded by his own cause, he wouldn't see the other. On one side, the mages deserved freedom - but then, look at the consequences of it. The amount of rogue nuts who do awful things, even Orsino, the head of a circle lost his head and let it all fall down. Anders actual actions frankly gave the Templar's theory more backing than it ever needed. He basically proclaimed to the world that Mages are irrational morons who can't control their power. He's doomed the reasonable mages to a life of persecution and set everything back centuries! He brought innocents into it, he killed many of the few people who stood in the middle where he should have stood and tried to find peace.

If you fight extremes with extremes you get a bloodbath. A mid-ground is needed. They had one, the problem was that it was sliding too much the Templars way.There was room for the Templars and the Mages to meet and discuss a bit more privacy and respect. Not any more, good one Anders! Frankly, Anders was an idealistic moron. He shot himself in the foot, doomed mages the world over, started a war that'll lead to the deaths of thousands of innocents, betrayed the trust of his allies and the few that stood by his cause. He was a greedy, impatient coward. It's one thing to rock the boat, it's another to rock it so much that EVERYONE, good or bad, falls in the water and drowns. Which is water Anders did. Blinded, selfish fool.

[Harid]

GavrielKay wrote...

It is one thing to say it should have been shown and another to say that it couldn't possibly have been in their minds when they wrote the story.  I agree that we should have been shown much more on all sides, but geez, you're just determined to find fault where you could instead choose to take some hints and run with it. 

There are normal people who support the mages.  There doesn't have to be a large number of them for them to spread the word.  We had the one lady who gave us a few mage helping quests.  Fereldens who were willing to attack Hawke when they thought we were going to harm Anders.  The lady who was feeding her cousing before being attacked by Templars.  The De Launcets who wanted us to help save their son.  Those are common folk who would support the mages.

You assume that there is no leadership because we weren't shown it, but you could also assume that leadership sprang up during the rebellion and thus was outside the game time frame.

In short, I find plenty of faults with the game, but I'm not determined to invent a few more where I can take some hints from in game content and fill in a few blanks with my imagination.

Anything could possibly be in their heads.  What is in the heads of Bioware writers in not of my concern as of now.  When you are framing a conflict, you have to make that conflict believable.  They didn't write a believable conflict.  They did not give you the ability to fill in holes with DLC (yet.)  Or Codex entries.  We are just to believe this happened.

And I stated again, movements.   Do you understand what I mean when I talk about a movement?   A few fragmented people that aren't creating a movement that can gain power or influence do not convey that a large portion of Thedas feels sorry for mages.  There is no abolitionist movement for mages.  There is no underground railroad for mages.  There is no non-mage pro mage lobbying the Chantry.  The people did not even stand up for the Hero of Fereldan, who saved them from the Darkspawn.  I have no reason to believe a non mage pro mage group exists given the general fear for mages that we have seen people show in both games.  If these non mage people do not feel sorry for mages when they are much needed middlemen in the conflict, there is nothing stopping this conflict from turning from Templar versus mages to Thedas versus mages, as far as we've seen, and even the Mages are not that powerful.  The conflict would not work, given the huge hated minority mages are IIRC, something in the area of less than 10% of the general population, and then by the point that that entire 10% is not even united, among a multitude of other problems with how this conflict was framed.  Even if they are that powerful, not every mage wants to dominate non mages, and given how mages haven't framed any semblance of a plan, we don't even know if that's their endgame.  (And it won't be.  Bioware is not going to frame a universe that has to go down two completely divergent paths.)

You say I haven't taken hints and run with it when my argument of mage failure is based on me taking the ideas from the game and running with it.  There is filling in blanks, and filling in the god damned Grand Canyon, and I just cannot do the latter to make this conflict plausible.

But I am repeating myself.  Perhaps it's time for me to step away.

Modifié par Harid, 20 juillet 2011 - 04:34 .

[GavrielKay]

Harid wrote...
And I stated again, movements.   Do you understand what I mean when I talk about a movement?

I don't understand why you are fixated on movements.  There are enough people who support the mages to get the word out about what happened in Kirkwall.  There are thousands of mages who can rebel.  You've decided that you need a movement, and I haven't.

[Rifneno]

Walrusninja wrote...

Anders did probably the worst possible thing he could've, he was a total moron, they ruined his character.

Basically it came down to impatience and ignorance. He was blinded by his own cause, he wouldn't see the other. On one side, the mages deserved freedom - but then, look at the consequences of it. The amount of rogue nuts who do awful things, even Orsino, the head of a circle lost his head and let it all fall down. Anders actual actions frankly gave the Templar's theory more backing than it ever needed. He basically proclaimed to the world that Mages are irrational morons who can't control their power. He's doomed the reasonable mages to a life of persecution and set everything back centuries! He brought innocents into it, he killed many of the few people who stood in the middle where he should have stood and tried to find peace.

If you fight extremes with extremes you get a bloodbath. A mid-ground is needed. They had one, the problem was that it was sliding too much the Templars way.There was room for the Templars and the Mages to meet and discuss a bit more privacy and respect. Not any more, good one Anders! Frankly, Anders was an idealistic moron. He shot himself in the foot, doomed mages the world over, started a war that'll lead to the deaths of thousands of innocents, betrayed the trust of his allies and the few that stood by his cause. He was a greedy, impatient coward. It's one thing to rock the boat, it's another to rock it so much that EVERYONE, good or bad, falls in the water and drowns. Which is water Anders did. Blinded, selfish fool.

That's a lot of questioning of Anders' intelligence. But hey, at least he was smart enough to realize a thousand year, multi-national empire won't relinquish its power because you ask nicely.

Remember that time the Germans wanted to conquer the world and kill races they didn't approve of? Good thing we were all able to talk that out peacefully. ... Oh no wait, we blew them up. And then decided tons of TNT wasn't good enough and invented an armageddon bomb. Huh. I thought that peaceful ending seemed a little unrealistic.