4350 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Rifneno wrote...
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?

Not as much no. There is a limit to how much bs people swallow.

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

On the contrary, that's my point. If he had no plan, or had one and no one is going to execute it, then why act and start the chaos?

I don't take acts in isolation. If an act serves no real long term purpose and he has no real clue what he's doing (his mental condition pretty much guarantees that), it's better he doesn't act at all as he is clearly not qualified.

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.

Who said that mages would be in control in Kirkwall?
Even if extremist Chantry members would think it's the same, and I don't doubt there are idiots like this. The majority amongst the Chantry and outside would probably be able to differentiate. They may not like it. In fact, they certainly won't like it. That doesn't mean they certainly will do something stupid like an Exalted March.

It is stupid and here's why. First of all, the Chantry doesn't rule anything. At best, it's a religious organization that monopolizes magic and lyrium, but states are very much independent (and they fight each other all the time). At worst, it's an Orlesian tool for control and influence (both recent and historical facts support this theory). So they don't have the manpower to act alone, they need states to act. The current geopolitical context is unlikely to have Nevarra allowing Orlais to spread its influence in the Free Marches.   

Furthermore, Kirkwall is Andrastrian. If the Chantry is stupid enough to attack an Andrastrian country, against a government that is popular and legitimate (unlike the previous Viscount, who apparently was not popular), it's showing everyone that it's not willing to respect the sovereignity of states, not willing to negotiate on anything,  and is an aggressive provocateur. Plus it may destablize the Waking Sea trade...etc.

So I do not think political elites outside of Orlais will be happy about this. As for the common people, I don't think they will be happy about a massacre either if Hawke makes it clear that the Chantry is the unprovoked aggressor (and since it has no real army, it's going to be Orlais, so add in proto-nationalist sentiments). 

Add to that an allied Sebastian taking over Starkhaven, and I think Hawke has enough political clout and legitimacy to make any unprovoked aggression against him unpopular.

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."

Kirkwall is an important commercial hub in the waking sea. He has international political clout. And Nevarra may not care about him personally, but they have interest in a rapprochement with Kirkwall, rather than allow Orlais to get its hands on it. For purely strategic reasons. Orlais controlling the Waking sea means a blockade on Nevarra.

Who would Nevarra rather deal with? Hawke? Or an Orlesian puppet?

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).

Yes, but outside of Tevinter it doesn't have much standing. It was based on Tevinter tradition, that others do not share. The real cracks must be in lands that are under the Orlesian Chantry banner. Tevinter had always been an outsider. Because it had always been outside the Orlesian empire. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 mai 2011 - 09:15 .

[GavrielKay]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

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.

It is an interesting theory. 

DAO had places where you had to choose between factions and some of those choices were definite grey areas and open to plenty of debate over which side had the right of it.  I thought those choices were generally well presented and they didn't forcibly heap more "badness" on the elves vs. the werewolves or Bhelen vs. Harrowmont to get the player to lean either way.  You could just weight some facts, go with your gut, whatever and keep playing the game.  There was lots of room to choose your PCs personality and play it out.

The nice thing was that the overall story was set - Wardens vs. Darkspawn.  How you played your Warden to get to the end offered more choice and richness than I see in DA2 without garbling the over all "save the world" theme.

For DA2 they suddenly decided to split the end mission down the middle.  Why were they were so determined to have an even-ish split in the big decision of the game.  If you try too hard to give both sides a good justification the you end up a mess of a story.

In the end we didn't get to save the world, we didn't get to stop a war, we don't even get to hang around and enjoy whatever we did accomplish.  There was much less feeling of overall satisfaction and lots of hand waving and craziness that they had to throw in to get that even split.

[KnightofPhoenix]

GavrielKay wrote...

If you try too hard to give both sides a good justification the you end up a mess of a story.

I don't think they were even trying that. At least without making both factions look like idiots and then lunatics. Which esentially means they failed.

In the Witcher, I genuinely sympathized with both factions (but with one more than the other) and both had their pros and cons. Like real life. In DA2, I found myself scratching my head and am more interested in explaining their idiocy than the real issue.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 mai 2011 - 09:27 .

[LobselVith8]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

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.

I think you mean they gave us a story where everyone pretty much acted like an idiot, the protagonist was reactive, Orsino became a Harvester for no sensibe reason, and Meredith became a Super-Saiyan possessed by the Soul Calibur sword. You had rapist templars and insane mages, and I can't imagine why the hell Hawke would stay in Kirkwall for seven years when everything goes wrong and the Champion becomes little more than an errand boy who has no impact on the world around him.

[GavrielKay]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

If you try too hard to give both sides a good justification the you end up a mess of a story.

I don't think they were even trying that. At least without making both factions look like idiots and then lunatics. Which esentially means they failed.

In the Witcher, I genuinely sympathized with both factions (but with one more than the other) and both had their pros and cons. Like real life. In DA2, I found myself scratching my head and am more interested in explaining their idiocy than the real issue.

I think they did fail.  Because it's too easy to see thorugh them intentionally making the mages look crazy and the Templars look vile.  When the game mechanics are thrown in your face so baldly, how do you get any immersion?

The whole story could have been re-written as Kirkwall vs. The Qunari and through the game you cultivate the support of the Templars or the Mages.  Both sides had plenty of reason to be against the Qun without random plot devices like the idol or the thin veil.  You wouldn't have had to make the Templars into vile rapists or the mages into self defeating lunatics to make the story work.

[Xilizhra]

Meh. I prefer the mage plot more than the qunari, and would be willing to see the qunari dropped altogether. Or portrayed as a distinct third side.

[LobselVith8]

Maybe Hawke is like Marv, from Frank Miller's Sin City, someone who is procifient in killing, but not in thinking. Dwight made a remark about Hawke that probably fits Hawke, "most people think Marv is crazy. He just had the rotten luck of being born in the wrong century. He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield swinging an axe into somebody's face. Or in a Roman arena, taking his sword to other gladiators like him."

[KnightofPhoenix]

Without really knowing about Qunari culture (we only met wth the military arm), and without having a stronger political context than looking for a Tome, then I don't think conflict with the Qunari would be as interesting as the mage / Templar issue. They just did it horribly.

[GavrielKay]

Xilizhra wrote...

Meh. I prefer the mage plot more than the qunari, and would be willing to see the qunari dropped altogether. Or portrayed as a distinct third side.

A third side could be interesting, but only if all sides have actually fleshed out stories and not plot devices to make them work.

[TEWR]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Without really knowing about Qunari culture (we only met wth the military arm), and without having a stronger political context than looking for a Tome, then I don't think conflict with the Qunari would be as interesting as the mage / Templar issue. They just did it horribly.

I thought the Qunari tension escalating was done really well. It was probably the only thing about DA2 that was done well.

[Rifneno]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Not as much no. There is a limit to how much bs people swallow.

Don't think I can answer this without breaking the "no politics" rule.

On the contrary, that's my point. If he had no plan, or had one and no one is going to execute it, then why act and start the chaos?

Because waiting around doing nothing is going to accomplish nothing. If you wait for a perfect solution, you'll never get anything done.

I don't take acts in isolation. If an act serves no real long term purpose and he has no real clue what he's doing (his mental condition pretty much guarantees that), it's better he doesn't act at all as he is clearly not qualified.

No long term purpose? The entire point of the game is that the Circles are fighting for their freedom now. And while we don't know who's winning or how things are going in general, obviously they weren't just stamped out like they always thought they'd be.

Who said that mages would be in control in Kirkwall?

Not I.

Even if extremist Chantry members would think it's the same, and I don't doubt there are idiots like this. The majority amongst the Chantry and outside would probably be able to differentiate. They may not like it. In fact, they certainly won't like it. That doesn't mean they certainly will do something stupid like an Exalted March.

It is stupid and here's why. First of all, the Chantry doesn't rule anything. At best, it's a religious organization that monopolizes magic and lyrium, but states are very much independent (and they fight each other all the time). At worst, it's an Orlesian tool for control and influence (both recent and historical facts support this theory). So they don't have the manpower to act alone, they need states to act. The current geopolitical context is unlikely to have Nevarra allowing Orlais to spread its influence in the Free Marches.

They very much do rule. They outright denied the King/Queen of Ferelden's magi boon to the hero who slew the archdemon. And the combined templar forces, along with all the random religious lynch mobs they can gather up, make up arguably the strongest army in Thedas.

Furthermore, Kirkwall is Andrastrian. If the Chantry is stupid enough to attack an Andrastrian country, against a government that is popular and legitimate (unlike the previous Viscount, who apparently was not popular), it's showing everyone that it's not willing to respect the sovereignity of states, not willing to negotiate on anything,  and is an aggressive provocateur. Plus it may destablize the Waking Sea trade...etc.

They already showed all except the aggressive part with Ferelden, and that's only because Ferelden wasn't willing to stand up for itself. Also, like them or not, the Tevinter Chantry is also Andrastrian.

Kirkwall is an important commercial hub in the waking sea. He has international political clout. And Nevarra may not care about him personally, but they have interest in a rapprochement with Kirkwall, rather than allow Orlais to get its hands on it. For purely strategic reasons. Orlais controlling the Waking sea means a blockade on Nevarra.

Who would Nevarra rather deal with? Hawke? Or an Orlesian puppet?

I have no doubt they'd rather deal with Hawke. But are they willing to actually fight a much greater military power to keep it as such? We don't know much about Nevarra, but most people wouldn't do it.

Yes, but outside of Tevinter it doesn't have much standing. It was based on Tevinter tradition, that others do not share. The real cracks must be in lands that are under the Orlesian Chantry banner. Tevinter had always been an outsider. Because it had always been outside the Orlesian empire.

Why would non-Orlesian Andrastians care about whether it was part of the Orlesian Empire?

GavrielKay wrote...

I think they did fail.  Because it's too easy to see thorugh them intentionally making the mages look crazy and the Templars look vile.  When the game mechanics are thrown in your face so baldly, how do you get any immersion?

The whole story could have been re-written as Kirkwall vs. The Qunari and through the game you cultivate the support of the Templars or the Mages.  Both sides had plenty of reason to be against the Qun without random plot devices like the idol or the thin veil.  You wouldn't have had to make the Templars into vile rapists or the mages into self defeating lunatics to make the story work.

Indeed. They spent so much time demonizing everyone that in the end some people actually wanted to just let the qunari destroy the city. Just a bad idea all round.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Without really knowing about Qunari culture (we only met wth the military arm), and without having a stronger political context than looking for a Tome, then I don't think conflict with the Qunari would be as interesting as the mage / Templar issue. They just did it horribly.

I thought the Qunari tension escalating was done really well. It was probably the only thing about DA2 that was done well.

Yea I meant that mages vs templars was horrible. I loved Act 2

[Rifneno]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Without really knowing about Qunari culture (we only met wth the military arm), and without having a stronger political context than looking for a Tome, then I don't think conflict with the Qunari would be as interesting as the mage / Templar issue. They just did it horribly.

I thought the Qunari tension escalating was done really well. It was probably the only thing about DA2 that was done well.

Yea I meant that mages vs templars was horrible. I loved Act 2

Primordial Thaig is by far the best part of the game IMO.  Act 1 was great.  Act 2 was good.  Act 3 was made of the tears of orphans.

[Xilizhra]

Primordial Thaig is by far the best part of the game IMO. Act 1 was great. Act 2 was good. Act 3 was made of the tears of orphans.

I liked Act 3, I just disliked the time gap.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Rifneno wrote...
Don't think I can answer this without breaking the "no politics" rule.

I think that's underestimating people. They do believe bs, but not without cause.

They are more likely to acccept BS if Anders destroyed the Chantry, then otherwise.

Because waiting around doing nothing is going to accomplish nothing. If you wait for a perfect solution, you'll never get anything done.

If you are not qualified, it's better you do nothing and not make it worse.

No long term purpose? The entire point of the game is that the Circles are fighting for their freedom now. And while we don't know who's winning or how things are going in general, obviously they weren't just stamped out like they always thought they'd be.

And if they win, then? What kind of society they want to build?

And even if they do build something, Anders was not the one to do it.

Not I.

You said that either peacefully or violently, mages were going to control Kirkwall.

They very much do rule. They outright denied the King/Queen of Ferelden's magi boon to the hero who slew the archdemon. And the combined templar forces, along with all the random religious lynch mobs they can gather up, make up arguably the strongest army in Thedas.

Actually, what Alistair is doing shows that their control is limited. And it's only pertaining to mages, yes they have control over them which is what I said. Other than that, they do not control states.

Unless they are willing to relocate a large number of Templars from Circles else where (which is not a wise move), I very much doubt that the Chantry on its own can wage a private war against a popular government. All their wars were done by states. And no, the Chantry does not have the strongest army in Thedas at all. That would be Orlais, Nevarra, Tevinter and the Qunari.
 

They already showed all except the aggressive part with Ferelden, and that's only because Ferelden wasn't willing to stand up for itself. Also, like them or not, the Tevinter Chantry is also Andrastrian.

They didn't. It was Orlais. They supported it, but they did not declare an Exalted March. And then they recognized Maric's regime because he was popular. So no, completely different.

And no, in the eyes of the Orlesian Chantry, the Tevinters are heretics. For them, they are not real Andrastrians. If Hawke does not start a schism with the Chantry, they have no real legitimate reason to declare Kirkwall heretical.

I have no doubt they'd rather deal with Hawke. But are they willing to actually fight a much greater military power to keep it as such? We don't know much about Nevarra, but most people wouldn't do it.

Nevarra defeated Orlais recently. So no, Orlais is not a much greater power. 

Why would non-Orlesian Andrastians care about whether it was part of the Orlesian Empire?

I am not sure I understand what you mean.

What I said is that Tevinter is part of a compeltely different culture and tradition and it's schism with the Orlesian Chantry is thus not going to affect other countries. The other coutnries however have been influenced by Orlais, whether directly or indirectly, and they share more in common, and it will require a movement from "within", like the Reformation, for them to be truly affected.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 mai 2011 - 10:41 .

[TEWR]

Rifneno wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Without really knowing about Qunari culture (we only met wth the military arm), and without having a stronger political context than looking for a Tome, then I don't think conflict with the Qunari would be as interesting as the mage / Templar issue. They just did it horribly.

I thought the Qunari tension escalating was done really well. It was probably the only thing about DA2 that was done well.

Yea I meant that mages vs templars was horrible. I loved Act 2

Primordial Thaig is by far the best part of the game IMO.  Act 1 was great.  Act 2 was good.  Act 3 was made of the tears of orphans.

Act 1 and Act 2 had merits themselves. What I would've liked to see though is instead of in Act 1 where you're trying to earn all this money, you actually have to do recon work around the entrances to the Deep Roads. Stuff to make it seem more like that was the primary focus instead of just the gold and maps. don't get me wrong, I still want the quests that led into the other acts in there (shepherding Wolves, Act of Mercy, etc.), but the main premise of Act 1 was this expedition.


Also, to the bolded, some people would take that to mean it was awesome. Especially Bioware since they insist on making us cry and enjoy the tears. I'd say it was made from a steaming pile of bronto **** molded and sculpted into some monstrosity, where it was left out in the sun.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 mai 2011 - 10:48 .

[Silfren]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

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.

[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]*sigh* 
Not everyone feels the way you do about the portrayal of so-called terrorists in DA2, and as for the fanbase...um, no, never mind.  I'm not getting into another discussion right now on terrorism versus freedom fighting or justified extremes or whatever.

Only thing I'm going to say is to repeat something I've said once elsewhere: I realize that Bioware has gone on record as admitting they deliberately skewed the way mages were portrayed in the game as a direct result of most people
default-siding with the mages during Origins.  They seem to have been successful given how many people I've read make comments about how difficult they find it to support mages in DA2.

However, I never really got that at all.  Not once throughout my playthrough of DA2 prior to reading that, did I ever find it strange that all the mages were acting "badly."  I never thought it was skewed, artificially or otherwise, and I never found it difficult to side with the mages.  I learned early on, through my character as opposed to meta-gaming, both about the Hellmouth aspect, and about how abysmally mages were treated in Kirkwall.  Then, of the mages who were behaving "badly," a very small minority seemed to be doing so purely out of a lust for power a la Tevinter.  All the rest struck me as feeling driven to desperate measures.  What I find strange is that people expect mages to hold themselves to such a high standard of morality no matter how bad life gets for them.  Well, no, I don't find that attitude strange...just inhumane and extremely self-righteous.  That kind of thinking usually stems from people who have no experience whatsoever of magor life suckage, and/or zero empathy for human suffering.

Even when I found out about Bioware's deliberate skewing, well, that was one gameplay effect that seemed to fit rather seamlessly in with the fact of Kirkwall, so it never bothered me. There's a lot of conflict between gameplay mechanics and lore in DA2, but the mage presentation never seemed to qualify.

Edit: Bah.  Screwy internet issues coupled with the site's insistence on telling me I've been logged out...and my post got hacked off in the middle.

Modifié par Silfren, 16 mai 2011 - 06:01 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Silfren wrote...
 What I find strange is that people expect mages to hold themselves to such a high standard of morality no matter how bad life gets for them. 

I personally expect them to hold themselves to a high rational standard and be reasonable and pragmatic. The mages we see are insane idiots.

From Grace and her insane and idiotic obsession with Hawke that led her to kill the Templars who risked everything because they thought mages had sacred rights. To the Resolutionists adopting terror tactics and honestly thinking they can bring about another magocracy unopposed. To Orsino for some obscure reason researching about the Harvester when it serves no real practical purpose. To Grace's lover being a disturbing cult leader blind to allies and helpers. To an elf mage murdering his wife for no reason, who despite the danger he poses, loved him and married him. To an insane psychopath who murders women and uses their bodies to recreate his wife via blood magic. To Anders, a mentally dusturbed, bordering on schizophrenic, quasi-abomination,  paranoid fool who represents no one, has no real plan, is consummed by hatred to the point of being completely blind to the concerns and feelings of others (like Fenris and the villagers the Baroness enslaved), who is too bomb happy for his own good and the good of mages.

Other than Bethany, were there any reasonable mages in DA2? Most end up being demon food.

And no, I am not using that to say that mages are all insane. I won't let an obvious (and admitted) and very failed attempt to show the other side affect my opinion that much. But I cannot feel any sympathy to any of the mages I've met in DA2. Understand, maybe. Never sympathize.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 mai 2011 - 03:56 .

[Xilizhra]

You left out Merrill and Marethari. Also Emile de Launcet. And Evelina, before her being cornered turns her into an abomination. And Alain.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 16 mai 2011 - 03:59 .

[TEWR]

Marethari is hardly a reasonable mage.

[Xilizhra]

True. But she's not in quite the same category of insanity, partially because we know barely anything reliable about her.

[TEWR]

fair point. She at least doesn't have a lust for power or go insane for stupid reasons. She has a good reason. She became an abomination, of her own volition sure which makes her stupid, but before that she was a good mage. So Marethari = good mage but a stupid person for what she did to Merrill

[Deztyn]

A couple days late, and the thread has taken a much more interesting turn. Still, I don't like to drop out of a conversation without winning at least agreeing to disagree.

Rifneno wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

. . . aren't we still talking about your theoretical Circle where kids go home to see their parents and mages get let out more often?

If so, while more people are willingly giving themselves or their children up, being allowed to leave more frequently makes even a slight increase in the abomination rate much more dangerous, not less. Since it's more likely that those Abominations will happen outside the controlled environment of the Circle and away from the Templars.

If not... I have no idea what we're talking about anymore! {smilie}

Ooo. You're right, I forgot what we were talking about too, sorry. LOL. You're right, that is a concern. I guess they would only be given limited freedom until they've reasonably proved themselves. How limited... well, that'd have to be a pretty complicated and drawn out policy.

So we can at least agree that taking mages out of their homes is necessary even if we disagree about the details?

I'll take it.

Yeah, but as there's only 5 tiers... I don't mean that abominations aren't dangerous, just that it's unlikely for one to both escape the Kirkwall RoA and cause more destruction than the RoA.

... Connor was a desire demon abomination, and he can lay waste to all of Redcliffe. That's not necessarily more destruction than the Right, but Hawke's not choosing the Right. She's choosing how to respond to the Right. So let's say you're right correct, Hawke and friends manage to kill every last templar. How many mages are actually going to be left standing at that point? 20? 50? 100? If just one of those is the next Connor (Because we do know for sure there are demons and abominations all over the place at this point) I think you can make a fair argument that it would have been better to have just gone along with the annulment.

(And of course, let's not forget that the power of the abomination depends partly on the power of the mage since the demon gets access to all the mage's latent power in addition to it's own.)

It was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

Remember, by 4:40 Black the Imperial Chantry had been led by mages for over 50 years, while elsewhere mages still lived in the Circles and the RoA had been around for centuries. Electing the Black Divine was also a stepping stone to abolishing the rules that prevented the magisters from regaining their power. Whether that was a good thing or bad thing depends on your point of view, but the tensions were there long before the Black Divine decided he wanted to bait the tiger. It's more surprising that the Orlesian Chantry allowed it for as long as they did.

A fair point. I'm still not sure that they wouldn't have called it for the celebration alone, given that they nearly marched on Orzammar over the assassination of one dwarf priest.

You shouldn't see it as just the death of one priest, it's an attack on the Chantry and it's followers by the people of Orzammar. It would be more like an embassy was attacked, it's ambassador murdered, the whole situation was endorsed by the area's legal government and the response from the country whose intrests were attacked was to consider sending in troops to take charge of the situation. I think it would have been a terrible idea for many reasons. But IMO thinking about an Exalted March under the circumstances wasn't completely out of line.

Aside from Cuckoo Bananas Ambrosia's idea to march on her own cathedral, Kirkwall's is the only known March attempt that's really unjustified. (Unless there's lore I've missed. Always possible.)

[Plaintiff]

Deztyn wrote...
Aside from Cuckoo Bananas Ambrosia's idea to march on her own cathedral, Kirkwall's is the only known March attempt that's really unjustified. (Unless there's lore I've missed. Always possible.)

They declared an Exalted March on the Dales that was not only entirely unprovoked but ignored the fact that Andraste helped to free the elves in the first place, and had been respectful of their beliefs, making no apparent attempt to convert them. It comes up in conversation a few times, the elves are pretty butthurt about it.

It seems to me that the Chantry's first answer to anything is violence. Individuals in the organization may advocate peaceful solutions, but that's apparently not official protocol. Far from being the 'loving mother' Elthina describes, the image I get of the Chantry is that of an abusive parent, prone to lashing out physically with little to no provocation.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 16 mai 2011 - 05:24 .