4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

Beerfish wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Of course if a person already has all the in game information available to them and if they have already 100% made up their mind as to what the right thing was to do then Elthina will get condemned because the right answer for Elthina was not  "Dump the templar commander and set the mages free!"

WRONG!  All we've asked of Elhina is that she do her damned job!  Meredith was flouting Chantry law and practice and had been for years, and Elthina knew it.  Not just about tranquility either.  Mereidth was openly taking (and abusing) authority as a secular ruler that was not rightfully hers as a Templar.  That's a fireable offense and Elthina has the authority to relieve Meredith of command.

We don't just see that with Meredith either.  Elthina knows for years that Sister (and later Mother) Petrice is a loose cannon of the worst kind and does NOTHING to reign in her subordinate until the Arishock is ready to do his duty to the Qun by shifting through rubble.  Then suddenly she discovers 'respect for the law'.  Amazing......

So tell me, given that Meredith is allowed to get away with everything short of murder, how can Elthina even be remotely considered to be negotiating in good faith if one party (Meredith) not only has no desire to negotiate, but absolutely no incentive to either given that Elthina will whitewash to the Divine anything she does?

-Polaris

Proving my point once again for the 100th time.  "She did a bad job because she did not do her job!"  And then a endless blurb about how horribler the templars and meredith are without ONCE saying a word about the all of the bad, dangerous behavior of mages. 

As I said timee and again.  Elthina is a bad preson because she didn't do away with meredith and neuter the templars according to the pro mage people in this discussion.

If you wanted her to do her job which includes not letting blood mages, abominations, tevinbters, ambiotious mages, crazy mages she should have told meredith to clamp down on the circle, remove orsino and root out all apostates and non circle mages.

The behavior of the mages is very easily argued as being caused by the templars.  This point has been stated again and again and again, and I stated it in my last response to your post on this.  You're just pretending we're not addressing it at all because what we actually do have to say flies in the face of the point you're attempting to make.  

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...

Question: why couldn't Hawke and the other mages magically bombard the templar ships still crossing the harbor after the final battle, to wipe out all of Kirkwall's templars in one stroke?

Because Orsino and his mages are idiots.
Like Meredith is an idiot for allowing them to set up defenses at a funnel.
Like the mages in turn are stupid for not taking advantage of it.

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Question: why couldn't Hawke and the other mages magically bombard the templar ships still crossing the harbor after the final battle, to wipe out all of Kirkwall's templars in one stroke?

Because Orsino and his mages are idiots.
Like Meredith is an idiot for allowing them to set up defenses at a funnel.
Like the mages in turn are stupid for not taking advantage of it.

I think living in Kirkwall burns 20 points off your IQ.

-Polaris

[Rifneno]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No long term plan and vision, and no idea of what kind of system he wants and no exact plan on how to bring it. If he had any intelligence, he'd know that alienating the populace, the single thing that made Meredith's life a living hell, is a phenominally stupid idea.

Is he alienating the populace though? The populace that would support mages' rights are the kind of people who don't judge the whole by the actions of the few. If the people know that it was a lone apostate that destroyed the Chantry and the templars executed the entire Circle for it, it would cement the notion that they're tyrants.

A short term plan is not that hard to have. What matters is the long term plan that he does not have.

You have to cross that bridge when you come to it. There's too many "if"'s and "but"'s until you see how things are turning out.

No, I don't know they'll certainly attack. They might, they might not. They'll certainly be pissed, but that's different. If they do attack, they are shooting themselves in the foot. Since we were talking about scenarios for the game that will lead to the same conclusion, then yea the Chantry would attack. Hawke doesn't have to be certain it will.

He does if he did the Faith quest. Leliana tells him flatly the Chantry will not allow Kirkwall to fall to magic. She also says they only tolerated the the Libertarians to keep an eye on troublemakers. The Chantry has no plans of letting a peaceful political solution give mages more freedoms.

Tevinter has an entire history that makes it a very easy target for villification and they established their own Chantry. Kirkwall is different and with the people approving of those reforms and establishing a legitimate government, without kicking the Chantry out, they will have a hard time justifying their aggression.

Will they? Or will they simply tell the people that Kirkwall wanted to free the mages which would inevitably bring back the Imperium? Even many real people believe free mages = imperium and they haven't been force-fed Chantry nonsense their entire lives.

Many not some, commoners were sympathizing with mages.
If Thrashk is put as KC for instance, who believes that Templars and mages can collaborated and that mages have sacred rights, then reforms can happen.

Furthermore, you underestimate the power of charisma and popularity plus political clout. Hawke, being the savior of Kirkwall from Qunari invasion has a lot of legitimacy.

Is it easy? No, it's certainly harder than blowing up a building. But it's feasible.

True, Hawke has a lot of pull. I'm not denying that. But you'd need an immense amount of pull to manage to undo a millenia of fearmongering brainwashing.

[Silfren]

Xilizhra wrote...

Question: why couldn't Hawke and the other mages magically bombard the templar ships still crossing the harbor after the final battle, to wipe out all of Kirkwall's templars in one stroke?

Because the game Devs didn't think players would notice something so obvious and instead be blind to all the ways in which the writing didn't make sense or required all its characters to be raging numbskulls.

...And indeed a lot of people haven't, as evidenced by so many people I've seen going "OMG that's right...I never noticed that."

Modifié par Silfren, 16 mai 2011 - 03:43 .

[IanPolaris]

Silfren wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Question: why couldn't Hawke and the other mages magically bombard the templar ships still crossing the harbor after the final battle, to wipe out all of Kirkwall's templars in one stroke?

Because the game Devs didn't think players would notice something so obvious and instead be blind to all the ways in which the writing didn't make sense or required all its characters to be raging numbskulls.

...And indeed a lot of people haven't, as evidenced by so many people I've seen going "OMG that's right...I never noticed that."

Indeed, this is a candidate for HISHE which is an entire web-site devoted to rooting out fallacies such as this (including why Galdalf and his Giant Eagle friends didn't FLY Frodo over Mt Doom and end the threat of the Ring in 15 minutes).

-Polaris

Edit:  HISHE==How It Should Have Ended

Modifié par IanPolaris, 15 mai 2011 - 07:52 .

[LobselVith8]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It feels good venting. I have half a mind to write blog or post a thread about this and list all the ideas I have.

You should make a post about it. The one thing most pro-mage and pro-templar agree on is the reactive nature of Hawke and the missed opportunities of DA2.

[Rifneno]

LobselVith8 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It feels good venting. I have half a mind to write blog or post a thread about this and list all the ideas I have.

You should make a post about it. The one thing most pro-mage and pro-templar agree on is the reactive nature of Hawke and the missed opportunities of DA2.

I don't know about that.  I worry if Beerfish and I agreed on something it may rip a hole in the space-time continuum.

[IanPolaris]

Rifneno wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It feels good venting. I have half a mind to write blog or post a thread about this and list all the ideas I have.

You should make a post about it. The one thing most pro-mage and pro-templar agree on is the reactive nature of Hawke and the missed opportunities of DA2.

I don't know about that.  I worry if Beerfish and I agreed on something it may rip a hole in the space-time continuum.

I wouldn't worry about that.  Such a rip would simply enable you to get Commander Shepard involved as well....or perhaps Commander Shepard can just Nuke Kirkwall from Orbit (since that's the only way to be sure).

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

Rifneno wrote...
Is he alienating the populace though? The populace that would support mages' rights are the kind of people who don't judge the whole by the actions of the few. If the people know that it was a lone apostate that destroyed the Chantry and the templars executed the entire Circle for it, it would cement the notion that they're tyrants.

I think he is, or not rallying their support like he should. Add to that Chantry propaganda that is obviously going to stress that Anders was not working alone (and add to that Orsino's idiocy), and I think the populace will be alienated. At least until mages do something or get a charismatic leader to fix it.

You have to cross that bridge when you come to it. There's too many "if"'s and "but"'s until you see how things are turning out.

But a general idea and plan are necessary, one that allows room for flexibility yes. But with a general idea.

And even if Anders had a plan, he was not leading or  part of a group that can execute it.

He does if he did the Faith quest. Leliana tells him flatly the Chantry will not allow Kirkwall to fall to magic. She also says they only tolerated the the Libertarians to keep an eye on troublemakers. The Chantry has no plans of letting a peaceful political solution give mages more freedoms.

Kirkwall falling to magic is very different from Kirkwall's people and nobles rising up to put in place a legitmate and popular government, with the help of Templars. One that is in favor of some reforms vis a vis mages, but certainly not allowing them to be unregulated.

I would not be counting on them being nice. More on them being rational and not stupid.
If they turn out to be stupid, then it can be delt with.

Will they? Or will they simply tell the people that Kirkwall wanted to free the mages which would inevitably bring back the Imperium? Even many real people believe free mages = imperium and they haven't been force-fed Chantry nonsense their entire lives.

They can try and they can be somewhat succesful. But I think Hawke can counter act that, especially when he has a Templar ally. Furthermore, an alliance with Nevarra (it's not in their interest to have Orlais encroach on the Free Marches), can be used as a counter-balance. 

True, Hawke has a lot of pull. I'm not denying that. But you'd need an immense amount of pull to manage to undo a millenia of fearmongering brainwashing.

Not if you have patience and realize that change comes gradually, even in Revolutions despite them claiming otherwise. No matter how much the French Revolutionaries think they were breaking off with the past, their reforms are part of a trend of change that was started by Richelieu a century earlier.

The weaknening of Orlais will mean a weakening of the Chantry and a shift of the balance of power, hwich is now happening, is an opportunity to press for change that way.

[Well]

Beerfish wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Hawke's inaction is part of the problem.

Agreed, but the developers didn't let him take the kind of action I would have taken regarding Anders once he start acting as suspicious as a person can act.

After he killed Ella he would of been dead.I must of missed the awesome button because I couldn't do anything.So much for roleplaying.

[LobselVith8]

Silfren wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Publically making Anders Tranquil wouldn't prevent his becoming a martyr.  It's just as likely to make him such, if not even more so.  Just sayin'.

I don't think so.
I know many cases of *war heroes* being thrown to the streets to live as shells of men, and as beggars and no one saw them as martyrs.

I think Anders can be delt with without making him a martyr.

I dunno.  All you have to have is mages who view Anders as a hero and a freedom fighter, who loathe the very idea of the Rite of Tranquility.  Anyone who viewed that as a fate worse than death would likely consider him a martyr.

I imagine the Resolutionists would be the group of mages who would think Anders had the right idea to destroy the Chantry, if Leliana is correct about them seeking independence through violence.

[LobselVith8]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

that's another way we can fix the game. Like the Magistrate's Orders quest.

Do we really need to "fix" that though?

well, killing Kelder should get you the support of the alienage, which Merrill could even help garner and the Magistrate tries to seek revenge on you at some point. On the other side of it, if you spare Kelder you get the Magistrate's support.

It's odd that the only change with helping Magistrate Vanard is that Cullen makes note of it as the reason Hawke doesn't suffer any consequences from hiding an apostate. Killing Kelder and protecting the Alienage should be something that establishes some ties to Hawke and the city elves, particularly if he's willing to cross the Magistrate when no one else is willing to.

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I imagine the Resolutionists would be the group of mages who would think Anders had the right idea to destroy the Chantry, if Leliana is correct about them seeking independence through violence.

I want to know how many of them are there. I am thinking a small minority, as they were apparently incapable of securing votes in Cumberland.

But I wonder if most Libertarians disagreed with them, or most became Resolutionists.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 mai 2011 - 08:29 .

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
I imagine the Resolutionists would be the group of mages who would think Anders had the right idea to destroy the Chantry, if Leliana is correct about them seeking independence through violence.

I want to know how many of them are there. I am thinking a small minority, as they were apparently incapable of securing votes in Cumberland.

But I wonder if most Libertarians disagreed with them, or most became Resolutionists.

I would think most would disagree with them.  After all the Libertarians lost the vote at Cumberland, but not by a whole lot it would seem.  The resolutionists seem to be a radical splinter group to me (and my suspicious mind wonders if the Seeker themselves aren't surretipiously backing/funding this splinter group to give the Templars/Chantry an excuse to crack down on mages even harder).

-Polaris

[Costin_Razvan]

The Resolutionists are a bunch of apostate mages Knight, so ofc they don't get any votes.

They are terrorists, plain and simple and it becomes even more apparent that were supposed to side with the Templars in DA2., because duh....if there mages are hoping to win any war through terror tactics then they are completely foolish.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Ian Polaris
I think that suspicious is not without reason. The Chantry after all is in Orlais and I very much doubt they are not involved in "The Game", learning a lesson or two.

But something tells me greater forces are at play here.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 mai 2011 - 08:36 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

The Resolutionists are a bunch of apostate mages Knight, so ofc they don't get any votes.

They are terrorists, plain and simple and it becomes even more apparent that were supposed to side with the Templars in DA2., because duh....if there mages are hoping to win any war through terror tactics then they are completely foolish.

I meant when they were part of the Libertarians. I got the impression they broke off after Cumberland.

EDIT: or they may have broken off during the votes, which led to the Libertarian defeat.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 mai 2011 - 08:37 .

[IanPolaris]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

The Resolutionists are a bunch of apostate mages Knight, so ofc they don't get any votes.

They are terrorists, plain and simple and it becomes even more apparent that were supposed to side with the Templars in DA2., because duh....if there mages are hoping to win any war through terror tactics then they are completely foolish.

Yeah, it's one more piece of evidence that shows the Devs were being incredibly heavy handed (not to mention skewed to the point of dishonesty) when it comes to magic and mages....especially since "Faith" is the first we ever hear of the Resolutionists...and every terrorist worth their suicide bombs knows that 'taking responsibility' and getting into the public eye is crucially important.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

IanPolaris wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

The Resolutionists are a bunch of apostate mages Knight, so ofc they don't get any votes.

They are terrorists, plain and simple and it becomes even more apparent that were supposed to side with the Templars in DA2., because duh....if there mages are hoping to win any war through terror tactics then they are completely foolish.

Yeah, it's one more piece of evidence that shows the Devs were being incredibly heavy handed (not to mention skewed to the point of dishonesty) when it comes to magic and mages....especially since "Faith" is the first we ever hear of the Resolutionists...and every terrorist worth their suicide bombs knows that 'taking responsibility' and getting into the public eye is crucially important.

-Polaris

I don't mind there being extremist mages who are foolish. That's just a fact of life.

The problem however is that DA2 lacked so much nuance, that we don't really see moderate and reasonable mages (while not being stupid, ridiculous or inactive).

There is only one I can think of, that guy with Grace and he was meh. Not nearly the same as someone like Thrashk.

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I don't mind there being extremist mages who are foolish. That's just a fact of life.

The problem however is that DA2 lacked so much nuance, that we don't really see moderate and reasonable mages (while not being stupid, ridiculous or inactive).

Exactly.  We see that Templars can be reasonble, but the only mage we are allowed to see are insane, bloodthirstly,. hypocrits, and anyone that has played DAO knows that is untrue and unfair which is why I have and have had very unflattering words about DG's writing and basic honesty.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

IanPolaris wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I don't mind there being extremist mages who are foolish. That's just a fact of life.

The problem however is that DA2 lacked so much nuance, that we don't really see moderate and reasonable mages (while not being stupid, ridiculous or inactive).

Exactly.  We see that Templars can be reasonble, but the only mage we are allowed to see are insane, bloodthirstly,. hypocrits, and anyone that has played DAO knows that is untrue and unfair which is why I have and have had very unflattering words about DG's writing and basic honesty.

-Polaris

To compare it with the Witcher, since I recently finished it and thought that the Order (humans) / Scoia'tael (nonhumans) conflict was done much better.

Both factions have radicals. Yaevinn, the eloquent elven leader, is very radical and is very quick to consider nonhumans who are not with him as traitors. And he resorts to terrorism and is blatantly racist. The leader of the Order, Jacques, essentially wants to commit genocide that he thinks is inevitable. 

But alongside that, you have other views. You have the dwarf Vivaldi, who personally hates humans, who also thinks that Yaevinn is a moron (and gets accused of treason by both sides). You have Siegfried of the Order who is more commited to saving humans than killing elven terrorists (he is more happy with you if you save hostages at the cost of terrorists escaping than vice versa) and his comments after the battle of the Swamp also shows his honor. A merc that the Order hired, Rayla, who is far from being moderate herself, gets her command hijacked by even more radical Knights.   The elven Toruviel resorted to hostages, but did not want to kill them (until the knights attacked without caring)....etc.

Obviously it's not perfect, but you had a lot of views in there that provided a much more nuanced and balanced image.  And at the end of the day, I can sympathize with both factions, even as I side with one against the other (I still think Yaevinn is an elegant and eloquent figure, even if short sighted and blinded by hatred).

EDIT: of course you also had humans and nonhumans working in a hospital at the climax of the game treating everyone regardless of race (and both the Order and Scoea'tael don't like that).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 mai 2011 - 08:55 .

[Rifneno]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I think he is, or not rallying their support like he should. Add to that Chantry propaganda that is obviously going to stress that Anders was not working alone (and add to that Orsino's idiocy), and I think the populace will be alienated. At least until mages do something or get a charismatic leader to fix it.

And the Chantry's propaganda wouldn't help them in your plan of showing the world their bloodlust should they attack Kirkwall for peaceful reform?

But a general idea and plan are necessary, one that allows room for flexibility yes. But with a general idea.

And even if Anders had a plan, he was not leading or  part of a group that can execute it.

Kind of just dismissed your own point there. If he's not going to be around to execute it, what good is the plan?

Kirkwall falling to magic is very different from Kirkwall's people and nobles rising up to put in place a legitmate and popular government, with the help of Templars. One that is in favor of some reforms vis a vis mages, but certainly not allowing them to be unregulated.

I would not be counting on them being nice. More on them being rational and not stupid.
If they turn out to be stupid, then it can be delt with.

Is it different? Eye of the beholder and all that. Whether it falls to magic violently or peacefully, both end with mages in control that the Chantry doesn't want them in. And I don't know if I'd call it stupid for an organization that rules most of the known world to nip an insurrection in the bud.

They can try and they can be somewhat succesful. But I think Hawke can counter act that, especially when he has a Templar ally. Furthermore, an alliance with Nevarra (it's not in their interest to have Orlais encroach on the Free Marches), can be used as a counter-balance.

Hawke is a hero to Kirkwall. He doesn't mean dick to other nations. Except maybe Tevinter because of the Arishok thing, but I don't think anyone wants their "help."

Not if you have patience and realize that change comes gradually, even in Revolutions despite them claiming otherwise. No matter how much the French Revolutionaries think they were breaking off with the past, their reforms are part of a trend of change that was started by Richelieu a century earlier.

One could make the argument that the Tevinter Chantry deciding "magic should serve man, not rule over him" meant different than the Orlaisian Chantry and the following schism was the initial crack in the foundation like your Richelieu story (I'll have to take your word on the French revolution, I know nothing about it).

Well wrote...

After he killed Ella he would of been dead.I must of missed the awesome button because I couldn't do anything.So much for roleplaying.

Agreed. As much of an Anders supporter I am, in games where Ella dies I think he should be executed.

Costin_Razvan wrote...

The Resolutionists are a bunch of apostate mages Knight, so ofc they don't get any votes.

They are terrorists, plain and simple and it becomes even more apparent that were supposed to side with the Templars in DA2., because duh....if there mages are hoping to win any war through terror tactics then they are completely foolish.

Ow, my brain... KoP, Polaris, have I mentioned how much more fun it is to intelligently debate with you guys than... this?

[Costin_Razvan]

Why do I get the vibe the main story of DA2 was supposed to be different then when they presented the story to EA a conversation like this occured:

EA: Now that's a.....complex story filled intrigue and mystery and interesting characters....but you see there's a catch.

Bioware: Sir?

EA: We want you to include terrorists, and one of your companions to be a terrorists, we also want them to be portrayed in the most unreasonable, irational manner ever conceinved.

Bioware: Sir that would ruin us! Our fanebase would never...

EA: I don't give a skak about your fanbase, now give me the story I want because people want terrorists so they can kill them in games!

Bioware: But sir!

EA: No buts, get to work or your company is ended.

[Xilizhra]

Hawke is a hero to Kirkwall. He doesn't mean dick to other nations. Except maybe Tevinter because of the Arishok thing, but I don't think anyone wants their "help."

I'd take it.

One could make the argument that the Tevinter Chantry deciding "magic should serve man, not rule over him" meant different than the Orlaisian Chantry and the following schism was the initial crack in the foundation like your Richelieu story (I'll have to take your word on the French revolution, I know nothing about it).

Agreed there.