4350 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

Oh I'm not denying that they are ifs. I have nothing to back them up because I'm not claiming they will happen. I'm just saying what if it did happen.


And Merrill is NOT an idiot. She is far from being an idiot. Marethari is.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 20 mai 2011 - 01:52 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't trust nationalism or states as far as I can throw them. I prefer an international self-managed Circle organization. I'm also not certain how far real-world historical trends can be applied to Thedas, given the unprecedented effects of magic; of course, you seem to be more qualified on this subject than I, so I can't say much more. But given Kirkwall's Hellmouth status, I kind of doubt that much constructive could happen there.

I see a lot of similarities with the real world. For me, the rise of Nevarra and the fall of Orlais is the trend that will probably culminate in the end of old imperialism (of which the Chantry is parts and parcels with) and the emergence of more modern and more secular states (increase centralization would weaken the Chantry greatly as well). Indeed, we are already seeing this in Orlais itself (secular scholars in the unviersity Celene patroniszes are not popular with the Chantry)

I would never trust the mages to have their own international organization. Ever. They need to be under strict but more pragmatic and inclusive regulations. The best institution to handle this are states. They don't have to be under the direct command of states, but at the end of the day mages need to be regulated and it's the Leviathan that is the state that is best equipped to handle it at the current moment.

Also, getting rid of Meredith wouldn't get rid of the templars.

They don't have to be removed. A regulation for mages is necessary (something that Anders also does not understand). They should and can be tweaked gradually over time.

But the removal of Meredith is a clear sign that the people won't tolerate them BSing around. It's implicitly setting up the new rules.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 20 mai 2011 - 02:02 .

[Xilizhra]

They don't have to be removed. A regulation for mages is necessary (something that Anders also does not understand). They should and can be tweaked gradually over time.

The Chantry cannot control the templars. A magophobic religious institution should never be trusted to watch over mages.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...

They don't have to be removed. A regulation for mages is necessary (something that Anders also does not understand). They should and can be tweaked gradually over time.

The Chantry cannot control the templars. A magophobic religious institution should never be trusted to watch over mages.

Yes, states should do it at the moment.

But it's better to have it as a transition than as an attempted clear break (almost never works).
Templars rebelling against the Chantry appointed KC and helping Kirkwall set up its own government, can be part of that transition.

Because for me, the crust of the plot in DA2 was not really mages vs Templars (granted, I try not to remember it too much because it's horribly portrayed). Its more Chantry vs sovereign states and their at the very least implicit consent of Meredith usurping power illegally is the apex of the tension.

Problem is, Anders is so fixated on this one single issue that he can't realize that it's part of something bigger.

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You aren't gonna get far with claiming Cullen is a "good guy" against the pro-mage fellas. They are way too stuck up on an epilogue slide which never happened, and on the fact that he points out that mages aren't like normal people.

I have no idea what epilogue slide you're referring to, but that's probably because I don't derive my opinion of Cullen from any such thing. 

Also, there's more to it than that one comment he makes about mages not being "people like you and me", although yes, that definitely feeds into it.

The one where he goes bat**** crazy and kills a handful of apprentices, after which he flees the tower.

That one along with the "People-line" have been what most people see when they talk about Cullen. His rather overbearing attitude, willingness to spare even the guilty mages and thought for the greater good are often overlooked.

Oh, and Thrask was at least as naïve as he was "good".

Which means what, exactly?  What's your point?  And what is this thing with you and sneer quotes?  

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

yes because Templars and Mages working together to coexist peacefully is a very bad idea.

*rolls eyes*

It wasn't holding hands. It was mages and Templars having a common person to hate that they wanted to see ousted because she was bad for the both of them.

Indeed, and look what it brought him to include the mages. Death. A vast improvement. Had he kept the mages out, and let the Templars alone oust Meredith, it could've worked. Instead he wanted to improve the world in one swoop, and peacefully by the sound of it. Unrealistic and naïve.
He should've united the Templars. Ousted Meredith. Been made new KC (hopefully), and then improved relations with the mages, since the amges would probably love him for having removed Meredith from command.

I strongly doubt that Thrask was trying to change the world in one swoop.  That he joined with mages as well as like-minded templars doesn't mean he believed he could change anything overnight or was even trying to.  What he was trying to do is no different whether he involved mages or not, so if he was trying to change the world in a single blow by including mages, he'd have been trying to do the very same with only templars.

[Silfren]

louise101 wrote...

Grace was from starkhaven, flew from there and worked wonders in kirkwall. Thrask knew, and died for it.

Grace being from Starkhaven has NOTHING to do with, well, anything.  Thrask didn't know she was a blood mage. 

[TEWR]

who was it that asked a while back why Meredith didn't fight against the Qunari sooner than before the climax of Act 2?

If it was someone here, I just discovered why.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 20 mai 2011 - 02:27 .

[Silfren]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Instead he wanted to improve the world in one swoop, and peacefully by the sound of it. Unrealistic and naïve.

This is more or less why Anders succeeded when Thrask failed.

How did Anders succeed other than starting a war? What results did he bring? And if the chaos he started does come up with results, the credit is due to those who thought about it, and clearly not the mentally deranged fool.

Thrashk, in his failure, still demonstrated the possibility of collaboration and the only ones who ****ed it up are mages. Or rather one mage who should have been tranquilized, but wasn't because the Templars were unexplainably merciful.

Eh, leaving the templars absolved of responsibility doesn't cut it.  Meredith didn't have to call for the Rite in response to Anders, and none of the other templars had to go along with it.  Claiming that any mage was solely responsible to the exclusion of the templars is grossly inaccurate.

[Silfren]

TJPags wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

He succeeded in starting the revolution. He was correct in his beliefs about how the mages felt about the Chantry, and also in the notion that they needed a symbol to begin it. He needed to do nothing more; credit will certainly go to those who think about and fight in the war, but he deserves it as well, as the perfect and perhaps only person to start it.

Ends =/= means.

They do when there's only one viable means of achieving them.

*waits for the gasps of horror*

Modifié par Silfren, 20 mai 2011 - 02:45 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Silfren wrote...
Eh, leaving the templars absolved of responsibility doesn't cut it.  Meredith didn't have to call for the Rite in response to Anders, and none of the other templars had to go along with it.  Claiming that any mage was solely responsible to the exclusion of the templars is grossly inaccurate.

Missed the point.
Thrashk's rebellion failed because of an idiot mage.

I never absolved Tempalrs and specifically Meredith of responsability, in fact my initial position of Meredith being the primary culprit for this whole mess is mostly unchanged (though I am starting to give more responsability to the Divine).

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

who was it that asked a while back why Meredith didn't fight against the Qunari sooner than before the climax of Act 2?

If it was someone here, I just discovered why.

I wouldn't be surprised if she wanted to start the conflict. The Arishok would have to be pretty dumb not to realize who's really making all the shots. He had to contact Meredith, and she probably didn't make any effort to make peace.

But all this seems beyond her, I don't think she can think beyond her nose (she may have inadvertantly started it). Perhaps Petrice had those kinds of ideas in mind.

EDIT: food for thought. Meredith didn't give a **** about nobles being held hostage until she was reminded.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 20 mai 2011 - 02:29 .

[TEWR]

Well Meredith didn't care about the Qunari because she viewed the mages as the real threat. Even when they weren't a threat. She didn't want to lose any men to the Qunari.

Two of the Hanged Man's patrons, who weren't drunk, said that this was the reason she gave.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

who was it that asked a while back why Meredith didn't fight against the Qunari sooner than before the climax of Act 2?

If it was someone here, I just discovered why.

So spit it out! Why????

Edit: Eh, crap, I see you posted the answer already.  Damn forums not loading properly.

Modifié par Silfren, 20 mai 2011 - 02:44 .

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

who was it that asked a while back why Meredith didn't fight against the Qunari sooner than before the climax of Act 2?

If it was someone here, I just discovered why.

So spit it out! Why????

Look above your post

[TJPags]

Silfren wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

He succeeded in starting the revolution. He was correct in his beliefs about how the mages felt about the Chantry, and also in the notion that they needed a symbol to begin it. He needed to do nothing more; credit will certainly go to those who think about and fight in the war, but he deserves it as well, as the perfect and perhaps only person to start it.

Ends =/= means.

They do when there's only one viable means of achieving them.

*waits for the gasps of horror*

<insert horrified gasp>

I'll back slowly out of the thread again now . . . I just didn't want to disappoint . . .

[dragonflight288]

Nice to know that everyone can still have a good solid...140 page debate. So yes, Kirkwall has a lot of idiots, but it has a lot of smart and dependable people too.

Thrask went to mages and templars, one by one, and got them to work together toward a common goal. If they had succeeded, templars would still exist, the chantry would still be in power, but he managed to prove that mages and templars CAN work together. All it took was one idiotic blood mage hell-bent on revenge for the death of her boyfriend to ruin it.

And, need I remind everyone, even as she was demanding blood, he was ordering everyone to stand down. Only a small handful committed suicide by method of attacking Hawke. Most weren't following her.

And Anders DID recognize he was no leader. He outright asked my mage Hawke to lead a revolution in Act 2. Well, mentioned revolution and that Hawke can lead it. And he does have a point, Templars and the Chantry were built by man. Not the Maker (if he exists). The Templar order and the Chantry as an institution is full of hypocrisy. And what they teach does have a lot of holes if we ask questions.

Now I am a mage supporter, but I am not blind to the faults of the mages. But I believe that many of those faults are reactionary because of the hypocrisy and power of the templars and chantry. If the templars are supposed to protect mages from the world, then why can templars rape and tranquilize Harrowed mages and not get punished? If blood magic is the only thing that can keep me from having all my magic neutralized if a templar was raping my wife (I'm not actually married, just an example) or my sister (me being a male), then I would use it to defend them. Does that make me evil?

[Xilizhra]

Its more Chantry vs sovereign states and their at the very least implicit consent of Meredith usurping power illegally is the apex of the tension.

Sovereign states seem to be an extremely small part of the general DA narrative.

[IanPolaris]

Xilizhra wrote...

Its more Chantry vs sovereign states and their at the very least implicit consent of Meredith usurping power illegally is the apex of the tension.

Sovereign states seem to be an extremely small part of the general DA narrative.

So far. If I am reading my King Alistair correctly, that's about to change at least for Fereldan.

-Polaris

[Rifneno]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I chuckle at this whole pro-mage vs pro-Templar divide that's going on.

And Grace should have been made tranquil them moment they caught her. She was clearly unstable.

Are you serious?  Inflicting a fate worse than death upon mages for stupid reasons, like seeming a bit unstable after having just seen their lover slaughtered in front of them, is *exactly* the problem.

[IanPolaris]

Rifneno wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I chuckle at this whole pro-mage vs pro-Templar divide that's going on.

And Grace should have been made tranquil them moment they caught her. She was clearly unstable.

Are you serious?  Inflicting a fate worse than death upon mages for stupid reasons, like seeming a bit unstable after having just seen their lover slaughtered in front of them, is *exactly* the problem.

Honestly I wish I had the opportunity to kill Grace.  She was very obviously as guilty as her boyfriend (and I don't mean just running away from the circle either).  She just had (barely) enough sanity to know that trying to kill you was a losing proposition the first time.  In fact if you talk with her and don't immediately buy her sob story, she turns into a perfect little witch (and not even Anders can defend her boyfriend).

I am very sympathethic to mages, but Grace deserves death for what she's done.

-Polaris

[nos_astra]

Addai67 wrote...
I'm kind of stuck up on DA2 Cullen saying mages can't be treated like people.

Well, from a templar POV they can't. Normal people can be ignored and sent on their merry ways, mages can't.

[dragonflight288]

Well, from a templar POV they can't. Normal people can be ignored and sent on their merry ways, mages can't.

Well, it is true that all mages do have access to great power that non-mages don't have access to. And it's always there, even without weapons.

But if you treat people as nothing more than weapons and keep kicking them down by telling them they're worthless as people, the chantry telling them for the most part they can't get married without permission from a Grand Cleric or Revered Mother. And even if they did, they are not allowed to have any children or the child would become 'property' of the chantry. If you do all that, you'll find many mages more than unhappy because they are denied the same rights they're siblings may have had because of their magic. If you constantly treat people as weapons, and they get fed up with it, guess what, they may not know how to be anything more than a weapon because they grew up being told they're one.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Silfren wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

He succeeded in starting the revolution. He was correct in his beliefs about how the mages felt about the Chantry, and also in the notion that they needed a symbol to begin it. He needed to do nothing more; credit will certainly go to those who think about and fight in the war, but he deserves it as well, as the perfect and perhaps only person to start it.

Ends =/= means.

They do when there's only one viable means of achieving them.

*waits for the gasps of horror*

Odd that an anti-circle fella would claim that the ends justify the means.

[Xilizhra]

Both the ends and means of the templars are evil, so there's no contradiction.

And the ends only justify the means if the ends are the best possible and the means are totally necessary.