4350 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

*rolls eyes* Pro-mage people say we pro-mages can't accept their points. But here's a single point often overlooked. We are NOT saying get rid of templars.

Insults don't rebuke points. Just ignore my posts, it'll be easier for you. But since turnabout is fair play, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this board is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

See how that resolved nothing? I'll be respectful until someone is disrespectful to me, sorry.

Umm....right. And the point of posting this was....to be spiteful? Feeling slighted by a few comments? Umm...okay. *shrug*

Mages are dangerous, Meredith is nuts, Orsino is guilty of his own crimes, and templars abuse their power over mages. Us pro-mages aren't speaking against the majority of templars, neither are we supporting the evil or insane mages. We criticize the very institution of the chantry and the templar order. It's corrupt and will not release their power over mages. All we advocate is change for the better of all people, not mages taking control of the system.

[Plaintiff]

Harid wrote...

Insults don't rebuke points.    Just ignore my posts, it'll be easier for you.  But since turnabout is fair play, what  you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this board is now dumber for having read it. I award  you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

See how that resolved nothing?  I'll be respectful until someone is disrespectful to me, sorry.

On the other hand, he didn't quote Billy Madison.

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

*rolls eyes* Pro-mage people say we pro-mages can't accept their points. But here's a single point often overlooked. We are NOT saying get rid of templars.

Insults don't rebuke points. Just ignore my posts, it'll be easier for you. But since turnabout is fair play, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this board is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

See how that resolved nothing? I'll be respectful until someone is disrespectful to me, sorry.

Umm....right. And the point of posting this was....to be spiteful? Feeling slighted by a few comments? Umm...okay. *shrug*

Mages are dangerous, Meredith is nuts, Orsino is guilty of his own crimes, and templars abuse their power over mages. Us pro-mages aren't speaking against the majority of templars, neither are we supporting the evil or insane mages. We criticize the very institution of the chantry and the templar order. It's corrupt and will not release their power over mages. All we advocate is change for the better of all people, not mages taking control of the system.

And what we pro-Templars usually claim is that you have unrealistic ideas as to how you wish to improve the system. We are also quick to point out how you generalize all Templars, while you refuse to do the same with mages, and that we don't know enough about the other cultures to use them as viable examples of how a system could function.
Basically we are trying to point out that all your grand ideas are pipe dreams until we get additional info.

[Rifneno]

Plaintiff wrote...

Harid wrote...

Insults don't rebuke points.    Just ignore my posts, it'll be easier for you.  But since turnabout is fair play, what  you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this board is now dumber for having read it. I award  you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

See how that resolved nothing?  I'll be respectful until someone is disrespectful to me, sorry.

On the other hand, he didn't quote Billy Madison.

Or take the bait. It's depressing when people have to resort to feigning some great offense hoping it'll distract from the fact they didn't have answers to snarky points. Like the fact it's stupid to claim mages having freedom would lead to Tevinter when there's no proof Tevinter was any different than any other tyrannical empire (Chantry included) in that it's just a case of people with power sometimes abusing it. Or the lulz of the fact the Countress is the best example of the horrors of magic when in fact she's a censored version of a real person with no magical powers who just liked to torture girls to death.

For a group that defends mass murder, they sure are sensitive.

[EmperorSahlertz]

She may have been inspired by Erzsébet Báthory but that is pretty much it. Their similarity pretty much ends at gender, depravity and rank.

Edit: To clarify, she is inspired about the legend of Erzsébet Báthory. There are many conflicting theories about wether or not Erzsébet Báthory was actually a killer, or if it was all a political scheme by her political rivals.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 21 mai 2011 - 11:25 .

[Lewie]

Silfren wrote...

louise101 wrote...

Its simple, any time anyone makes a clear point, who has sided with templars, at some point everything that happens in todays world is thrown in force. 

If you side with templar, it simply, for some reason.. has to mean you agree with the worst this world has to offer. Pro-mage players don't seem to notice that they are not criticised for their choice, the reason being we see their point also. Its a one way street, a debate... yet you may trip over a few mines just by stating an opinion.

People feed off it, some encourage it. Maybe changing someones elses choice validates their own, don't know.

My next playthrough is a first time nightmare run, that is scary.  

Riiiight, because no pro-templar crowd ever does the same thing, and no pro-mage person ever makes a clear point. 


Pro-mage people are criticized for their (our) choice ALL the time.  But you keep right on pretending that the one side is totally reasonable and never makes anything but a clear and valid point, and the other side is completely unreasonable and has no clear or valid points whatsoever.

If your going to accuse me of telling pro-mage that they are wrong, back it up by quoting me where i said so.

Modifié par louise101, 21 mai 2011 - 12:26 .

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Yes because those Slave Hunters couldn't have possibly been looking for new slaves. They just had to be hunting former slaves that are not shown or even hinted at in the game.

Gotta admit, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.  I don't think Tevinter would just LET slaves flee.  Slavers never do.  Sure, it could be that there are so many slaves in Tevinter, that the loss of a slave generally doesn't mean much unless they are a special sort like Fenris, so many slave-owners may not feel any compelling reason to mount a manhunt for escapees.  On the other hand, historically, hunting down escaped slaves and dragging them back to be made example of, one way or another, is a long and vaunted tradition. 

But not feeling any pressure to retrieve a particular slave because replacements are to be had doesn't suggest that this means Tevinter is happy-go-lucky about slaves that do manage to escape. 

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And what we pro-Templars usually claim is that you have unrealistic ideas as to how you wish to improve the system. We are also quick to point out how you generalize all Templars, while you refuse to do the same with mages, and that we don't know enough about the other cultures to use them as viable examples of how a system could function.
Basically we are trying to point out that all your grand ideas are pipe dreams until we get additional info.

1. A person can recognize the corruption and injustice of a system without having a solid, point-by-point analysis of how to fix it.  Sure, it'd be great if we did, but not having one does not in any way whatsoever invalidate the idea that the current system is broken and wrong.  Disputing our reasons for finding the current system corrupt and unjust is one thing.  Trying to imply that our not having a clear idea for a replacement means that the current system is preferable to any other option is not.

2. We actually have come up with sound ideas.  You can have your reasons for believing those ideas are unrealistic, but that doesn't mean your refutations are actually correct.

[Silfren]

louise101 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

louise101 wrote...

Its simple, any time anyone makes a clear point, who has sided with templars, at some point everything that happens in todays world is thrown in force. 

If you side with templar, it simply, for some reason.. has to mean you agree with the worst this world has to offer. Pro-mage players don't seem to notice that they are not criticised for their choice, the reason being we see their point also. Its a one way street, a debate... yet you may trip over a few mines just by stating an opinion.

People feed off it, some encourage it. Maybe changing someones elses choice validates their own, don't know.

My next playthrough is a first time nightmare run, that is scary.  

Riiiight, because no pro-templar crowd ever does the same thing, and no pro-mage person ever makes a clear point. 


Pro-mage people are criticized for their (our) choice ALL the time.  But you keep right on pretending that the one side is totally reasonable and never makes anything but a clear and valid point, and the other side is completely unreasonable and has no clear or valid points whatsoever.

If your going to accuse me of telling pro-mage that they are wrong, back it up by quoting me where i said so.

Re-read what I wrote.  I didn't accuse you of anything whatsoever.  I ridiculed your implication.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And what we pro-Templars usually claim is that you have unrealistic ideas as to how you wish to improve the system. We are also quick to point out how you generalize all Templars, while you refuse to do the same with mages, and that we don't know enough about the other cultures to use them as viable examples of how a system could function.
Basically we are trying to point out that all your grand ideas are pipe dreams until we get additional info.

1. A person can recognize the corruption and injustice of a system without having a solid, point-by-point analysis of how to fix it.  Sure, it'd be great if we did, but not having one does not in any way whatsoever invalidate the idea that the current system is broken and wrong.  Disputing our reasons for finding the current system corrupt and unjust is one thing.  Trying to imply that our not having a clear idea for a replacement means that the current system is preferable to any other option is not.

2. We actually have come up with sound ideas.  You can have your reasons for believing those ideas are unrealistic, but that doesn't mean your refutations are actually correct.

Uhm.. I wasn't trying to say you were wrong, but rather state the general opinion amongst pro-templars. We pro-templars do generally think you pro-mage fellas are wrong though. And vice versa I imagine.

And no one is disputing the fact that some Templars misuse their power, but instead of working to fix the problems, you want to tear down the entire system, which we pro-templars don't agree with. Further more, several of you come to some questionable conclusions about all the nations which don't have a Circle system, which we simply point out.

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And what we pro-Templars usually claim is that you have unrealistic ideas as to how you wish to improve the system. We are also quick to point out how you generalize all Templars, while you refuse to do the same with mages, and that we don't know enough about the other cultures to use them as viable examples of how a system could function.
Basically we are trying to point out that all your grand ideas are pipe dreams until we get additional info.

1. A person can recognize the corruption and injustice of a system without having a solid, point-by-point analysis of how to fix it.  Sure, it'd be great if we did, but not having one does not in any way whatsoever invalidate the idea that the current system is broken and wrong.  Disputing our reasons for finding the current system corrupt and unjust is one thing.  Trying to imply that our not having a clear idea for a replacement means that the current system is preferable to any other option is not.

2. We actually have come up with sound ideas.  You can have your reasons for believing those ideas are unrealistic, but that doesn't mean your refutations are actually correct.

Uhm.. I wasn't trying to say you were wrong, but rather state the general opinion amongst pro-templars. We pro-templars do generally think you pro-mage fellas are wrong though. And vice versa I imagine.

And no one is disputing the fact that some Templars misuse their power, but instead of working to fix the problems, you want to tear down the entire system, which we pro-templars don't agree with. Further more, several of you come to some questionable conclusions about all the nations which don't have a Circle system, which we simply point out.

What questionable conclusions would those be?  That there's no evidence that societies without Circles are, have been, or are in imminent danger of being annihilated by abominations or blood magic?

[EmperorSahlertz]

That one in particular, yes. For instance, we got one codex entry on Rivain in total, and suddenly their society is completely Abomination free and a mage haven, even though the very same codex says that their seers let themselves become possessed.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 21 mai 2011 - 03:57 .

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

That one in particular, yes. For instance, we got one codex entry on Rivain in total, and suddenly their society is completely Abomination free and a mage haven, even though the very same codex says that their seers let themselves become possessed.

You're missing the point.  Codices aside, there's nothing anywhere in the game to even hint that societies that don't lock mages into Circles have major problems with abominations.  It stands to reason that the Chantry would be alllll over that if it was the case and we would at least hear about it. 

It's true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  But given that the whole crux of the Chantry's position is that mages outside of Circles are a direct and ever-present threat, it's not unreasonable to assume that they would be all "Lookit what goes on in Rivain and among the Chasind and the Dalish" if that were so.  Certainly there should be some mention of it,  because it would stand to reason that the Chantry would be involved in ongoing efforts to force its Circle system onto those societies.  You know, in order to prevent possible abominations from raining havoc elsewhere.  Since that does seem to be one of the Chantry's primary objectives for existing.

And that codex's mention of Rivaini seers letting them become possessed as already been addressed several times as being the whole freaking point: the codex acknowledges that the seers allow themselves to become possessed, but also makes no mention of abominations.  It is a reasonable conclusion to draw from reading such that becoming possessed does not lead to an inevitable conclusion as the Chantry would have people believe.  Take note that that codex is written by a brother of the Chantry, too, no less.

Context is everything.

[Drachasor]

Personally, I've always felt there was a place for the Templars as PARTNERS to mages in making sure magic doesn't harm anyone. Both would have to answer to the people, ultimately (the problem with closed societies is that it is easier for them to become corrupt if they have a lot of power). The games all seem to think you can either have Templars around and rather tyrannical or get rid of all the Templars...neither makes much sense. Teams of Templars and Mages to track down maleficars does make sense however.

I too feel like the game hasn't dealt with blood magic in a very interesting way. As some have said, it would have been far more interesting if the Circle in Kirkland was using Blood Magic to try to help or fix something (perhaps repair the veil in the city), and that was a large point of conflict. Instead they just mix up blood magic with everything evil (demons, undead, going crazy), and that doesn't leave a lot of room for depth.

Modifié par Drachasor, 21 mai 2011 - 04:52 .

[In Exile]

Silfren wrote..
For the millionth time, Anders =/= Osama bin Laden.  Try John Brown.  Also, I know I'm not the only one sick of people apparently believing that real-world terrorism begins and ends with bin Laden.  Has it ever even occurred to you that you're giving him precisely the kind of power and infamy he wanted by insisting on making him terrorism's poster child?

Why is Brown any better of a comparison (morally, I mean)?

Or are you advocating that terrorist tactics could be morally justified?

If they are, then (let's just say for a moment mages were as evil as the templars say) would what templars do be justified?

I don't like the idea that we'd hinge the acceptability of certain behaviours to whether or not we believe the cause is just. Because then it reduces this conflict to which side you empathize with more.

[In Exile]

Drachasor wrote...

Personally, I've always felt there was a place for the Templars as PARTNERS to mages in making sure magic doesn't harm anyone. Both would have to answer to the people, ultimately (the problem with closed societies is that it is easier for them to become corrupt if they have a lot of power). The games all seem to think you can either have Templars around and rather tyrannical or get rid of all the Templars...neither makes much sense. Teams of Templars and Mages to track down maleficars does make sense however.
=.

I agree. The templars are a counterbalance. They just need to be policed and restricted so as not to perpretate abuses against mages.

The failure in the system was the autonomy that the templars had that led to the abuse they could then perpetrate.

[DKJaigen]

In Exile wrote...

Silfren wrote..
For the millionth time, Anders =/= Osama bin Laden.  Try John Brown.  Also, I know I'm not the only one sick of people apparently believing that real-world terrorism begins and ends with bin Laden.  Has it ever even occurred to you that you're giving him precisely the kind of power and infamy he wanted by insisting on making him terrorism's poster child?

Why is Brown any better of a comparison (morally, I mean)?

Or are you advocating that terrorist tactics could be morally justified?

If they are, then (let's just say for a moment mages were as evil as the templars say) would what templars do be justified?

I don't like the idea that we'd hinge the acceptability of certain behaviours to whether or not we believe the cause is just. Because then it reduces this conflict to which side you empathize with more.

I dont consider anders action as a act of terrorism but more of an act sabotage against valid military target. After all the chantry may not be filled with soldiers but it is a logistic and command centre

Modifié par DKJaigen, 21 mai 2011 - 08:13 .

[DKJaigen]

Drachasor wrote...

Personally, I've always felt there was a place for the Templars as PARTNERS to mages in making sure magic doesn't harm anyone. Both would have to answer to the people, ultimately (the problem with closed societies is that it is easier for them to become corrupt if they have a lot of power). The games all seem to think you can either have Templars around and rather tyrannical or get rid of all the Templars...neither makes much sense. Teams of Templars and Mages to track down maleficars does make sense however.

I too feel like the game hasn't dealt with blood magic in a very interesting way. As some have said, it would have been far more interesting if the Circle in Kirkland was using Blood Magic to try to help or fix something (perhaps repair the veil in the city), and that was a large point of conflict. Instead they just mix up blood magic with everything evil (demons, undead, going crazy), and that doesn't leave a lot of room for depth.

This is a nice idea but will never happen while the chantry exist in its current form

[Xilizhra]

Or are you advocating that terrorist tactics could be morally justified?

If they are, then (let's just say for a moment mages were as evil as the templars say) would what templars do be justified?

Protect and watch over the innocent mages, defeat the aggressors. That's all they ever needed to do.

[In Exile]

DKJaigen wrote...
I dont consider anders action as a act of terrorism but more of an act sabotage against valid military target. After all the chantry may not be filled with soldiers but it is a logistic and command centre

Then templar oppression is justified - they're controlling footsoldiers and generals of an army happy to rise up and shatter their logistic base and command hierarchy.

Why are the mages morally justified to think of the templars and chantry as military targets, but templars cannot do th reverse?

[Xilizhra]

Templars are an army, mages are a biological category. Also, the templars started it.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 21 mai 2011 - 10:43 .

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Yes because those Slave Hunters couldn't have possibly been looking for new slaves. They just had to be hunting former slaves that are not shown or even hinted at in the game.

Gotta admit, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.  I don't think Tevinter would just LET slaves flee.  Slavers never do.  Sure, it could be that there are so many slaves in Tevinter, that the loss of a slave generally doesn't mean much unless they are a special sort like Fenris, so many slave-owners may not feel any compelling reason to mount a manhunt for escapees.  On the other hand, historically, hunting down escaped slaves and dragging them back to be made example of, one way or another, is a long and vaunted tradition. 

But not feeling any pressure to retrieve a particular slave because replacements are to be had doesn't suggest that this means Tevinter is happy-go-lucky about slaves that do manage to escape. 

Emperor was arguing that these particular slavers were hunting runaway slaves based on one thing: a name. Sure our world has had cases of slave hunters, and Thedas' slave hunters may indeed be the same type, but a name is not conclusive enough evidence (to me at least) to say they were hunting runaway slaves.

Once I go into Act 3 I'll head down to the Docks and figure out if they were Slave Hunters or Slavers, and what the Quest entry says on them.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...

Templars are an army, mages are a biological category. Also, the templars started it.

Mages are, apparently, also an army, acting against a military target.

You can't both paint the mages as a single group, a militarized hive-mind acting with one aim toward independence and the entire institution of the Chantry as a military target, and then object (potentially) to the templars treating mages as prisoners of war.

Personally, I think their treatment is abhorent and their rebellion understandable.

But if anyone wants to whitewash Ander's action as military, then that has unforunate implications.

[Xilizhra]

Anders was acting completely alone, so no, the action itself wasn't military.

[Fast Jimmy]

Page 145 on a forum? Should we call Guiness or something? Jebus...