4350 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Silfren wrote...
But the templars actually are an army.  That's not player opinion or perspective.  They actually are the military arm of the Chantry, an institution with considerable political power.  Calling it a military target doesn't mean that anyone who attacks them was a military force.

The Chantry isn't a military installation. It's (at best) the seat of government. To use a real world parallal, you're saying that abuses by the US military would justify an attack on (for example) a US Senator or state Governor. Which is ridiculous because of the degree of separation in terms of authority. It leads to the insane arguments perpetrated by someone like Manson.

And, again, we have no actual idea how much authority anyone in the Chantry save Elthina had over the templars. As I pointed out: in Ferelden the templars and Circle are so far away from Denerim that they are autonomous, with the Grand Cleric having only the power to authorize certain rites.

Now, could Elthina command the templars to protect the Chantry? To be sure. But how much control does that actually entail in their day-to-day operations?

And that's just Elthina herself, as Grand Cleric. Let's say I grant that she's responsible (because she should have investigated more and removed Meredith). How does this implicate all the Chantry priests lower on the totem pole?

The Chantry isn't a demoracy. If you're going to argue the mere fact that Chantry priests (and lay people) support the Chantry by inaction justifies mages killing them, then you're using the same sort of logic that actual terrorists use to justify attacks against civilians. And I can't see how that's anything other than abohrent.

[ipgd]

Xilizhra wrote...

I've never heard that line. Is it rivalry?

Currently it's bugged and you can only get this on the rivalry path, I think? It's supposed to be there for friendship too but I've only seen it on my rival playthroughs:

Conversely, here's the unbugged dialogue he's supposed to have on the Rivalry path post-Chantry:

Hepler has basically confirmed his situation with Justice is supposed to be analogous to bipolar disorder so I doubt he's faking the mood swings.

[Deztyn]

ipgd wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

Anders claims to feel guilty? So what? What else does Anders claim about setting his magic bomb?

"I cannot tell you how good it feels for a spirit to fulfill its function. The waiting is over. I am finally seeking justice. And he is exultant. There is no ecstasy humankind can feel to match."

Yeah. Not moved by Anders later 'guilt.'

Another thing Anders says: "I'm a liar."

He's an extremely mentally unstable manic-depressive. He has episodes. I have no suspicion that he's misleading the player with his guilt post-Chantry because of previous manic upswings.

... I just wanted an excuse to quote "I'm a liar."

He's unreliable. He's not sane. And anything he says needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

But I dislike any attempts to equate Anders situation to someone with a mental illness. The writer was clearly referencing real world conditions while writing him, but Anders is a man who was willingly possessed by a literal demon. My sympathy for his situation is limited, and medication is not an option.

Modifié par Deztyn, 22 mai 2011 - 05:32 .

[Xilizhra]

Justice wasn't a demon when the possession was done (if he even is now).

[Jack Devlish]

     The premise for the end game lacked choices, I did not like either, I did not see why that all mages when put under preasue seemed to turn to blood magic, and then became abomiations, why? Were all mages so metally or spiritally weak? Hawke as a character had no influence whatsoever in the game, what kind of hero is that ! So it seems all all mages (except Hawke if they are a mage) must be controled or lubotomized,  the end lacks reasonable choices for the main character Hawke to choose or influence, this is a storyline design flaw in my opinion.  Where was the value of your Hawke's characters decisions in the game, I did not like or agree with either choice, not all mages must be controled, not all templars are evil.
     Besides all the criticism about the physical game flaws, overuse of maps, lack of evirormental change or deversity, too many game bugs some of which have yet to be addressed, too much streamlining of RPG elements etc. the story really lacked punch or logic. There were a lot of wonderful loose ends left unresloved in Dragon Origins that would have been interesting to explore, and that game had a lot more deversity and choices as well. I played Dragon Age 2 through on two systems, enjoyed it somewhat but overall was left disappointed and thought the game could and should have been better. I hope the next installment is more thought out and not put out just to make a fast buck.

Modifié par Jack Devlish, 22 mai 2011 - 05:43 .

[nos_astra]

Xilizhra wrote...
Justice wasn't a demon when the possession was done (if he even is now).

Yeah, Anders thought that being possessed by a spirit was a good idea. Merrill points out to him that the Dalish don't distinguish spirits and demons, trying to convince him that she's knowing exactly what she's doing ... unlike him. Must have been a major case of Fridge Horror for Anders who constantly derides/chastises mages for trusting demons.

Modifié par klarabella, 22 mai 2011 - 05:45 .

[ipgd]

Deztyn wrote...
... I just wanted an excuse to quote "I'm a liar."

He's unreliable. He's not sane. And anything he says needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

But I dislike any attempts to equate Anders situation to someone with a mental illness. The writer was clearly referencing real world conditions while writing him, but Anders is a man who was willingly possessed by a literal demon. My sympathy for his situation is limited, and medication is not an option.

I'm not saying you have to sympathize with him, but the analogue is such that I doubt he's employing any sort of deception there. He's just crazy :innocent:

Modifié par ipgd, 22 mai 2011 - 05:43 .

[Silfren]

klarabella wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Justice wasn't a demon when the possession was done (if he even is now).

Yeah, Anders thought that being possessed by a spirit was a good idea. Merrill points out to him that the Dalish don't distinguish spirits and demons, trying to convince him that she's knowing exactly what she's doing ... unlike him. Must have been a major case of Fridge Horror for Anders who constantly derides/chastises mages for trusting demons.

Both Awakenings party banter and the short story of Anders would indicate that it was Justice's idea to merge with Anders, so Justice also thought it was a good idea.  I wish people would stop pretending that Anders is completely and solely responsible for that monumentally bad decision. 

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
So yes, Greagoir played by his organization's own, evil rules. Kudos.

But those rules are transparent, and in the case of the Ferelden Circle, fairly applied. If the Circle itself had a prohibition on magic, would you say that's immoral or evil? That certain types of magic are forbidden is not in itself evil at all. There is a lot that is exploitative about the Circle and the Chantry rules that buffer it, but saying that blood magic is criminal is not at all evil.

Jowan knew what the laws were and they were fairly applied (as one could expect in a medieval setting).

Irving and company were already safe, and Cullen had clearly lost it by that point.

But they could have been (or were influenced) by blood mages. That was Cullen's argument. It was the exact paranoid rationale that ruled the day in Kirkwall. And Gregoire rejected it.

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, most of them are on the opposite
side of a war now, so that problem is likely self-solving.

Unless they win the war. In which case, it'll be a really fun time for them after?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Deztyn wrote...
And in addition to the thin veil you have the circle's size being bloated due to the Starkhaven mages, the Resolutionists making trouble, the Qunari attack, the refugees, the Crazy-times idol ... there's so much going on in Kirkwall that contributes to the problems

Most of those events wouldn't have mattered if Meredith did not involve herself in politics and thought that she could police Kirkwall. Kirkwall would have probably suffered, but I think a more competent KC would have been able to stabilize the mage situation or at the very least, make it less bad.

The resolve of the resolutionists, or at least the underground support they had, is in large part strengthened by Meredith's clumsiness. As for the Starkhaven mages, again, Chantry incompetence for them to think that Meredith can handle even more pressure. Would have been considerably smarter to divide them up and send a few to each circle, rather than burden the most contested Circle in Thedas in a dangerous political climate (Templars usurping power). 

that I don't think it's fair to hold up Kirkwall as an example of the failure of the Chantry overall.

Oh I am not claiming that Chantry failure in Kirkwall is necessarily representative of the system for all those centuries. However I maintain that the Chantry's glaring failures now are indicative that the institution,  ultimately like any other, has become a political dinosaur that needs to be replaced by something more efficient.

The Chantry has a severe lack of oversight. It can't adapt and respond effectively, possibly due to internal divisions. And they consider Exalted marches as solutions too much for their own good. When the Chantry seriously thinks that an Exalted March on an Andrastrian country is a good idea, it's really the thrashing before drowning.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 mai 2011 - 06:29 .

[Xilizhra]

But those rules are transparent, and in the case of the Ferelden Circle, fairly applied. If the Circle itself had a prohibition on magic, would you say that's immoral or evil? That certain types of magic are forbidden is not in itself evil at all. There is a lot that is exploitative about the Circle and the Chantry rules that buffer it, but saying that blood magic is criminal is not at all evil.

The punishment is grotesquely oversized for the crime.

But they could have been (or were influenced) by blood mages. That was Cullen's argument. It was the exact paranoid rationale that ruled the day in Kirkwall. And Gregoire rejected it.

Yes, he's saner than Meredith. I don't see how that makes him good.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Jack Devlish wrote...

     The premise for the end game lacked choices, I did not like either, I did not see why that all mages when put under preasue seemed to turn to blood magic, and then became abomiations, why? Were all mages so metally or spiritally weak?

I personally prefer demons being agents of temptation. Breaking a mage's will in a slow process unless unleashed (like what Uldred did). In DA2, they seem to turn into abominations in seconds and then summon many others from the ground. So yea, it lacked the same amount of subtelty.

Could be due to the Thin Veil excuse, but when a lot in the game depends on the explanation of an optional codex for it to make sense, you have a problem. The Enigma of Kirkwall could have been integrated as a key element in the plot, and the as of yet idiotic idea of the idol could have been included in this. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 mai 2011 - 06:35 .

[erilben]

klarabella wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Justice wasn't a demon when the possession was done (if he even is now).

Yeah, Anders thought that being possessed by a spirit was a good idea. Merrill points out to him that the Dalish don't distinguish spirits and demons, trying to convince him that she's knowing exactly what she's doing ... unlike him. Must have been a major case of Fridge Horror for Anders who constantly derides/chastises mages for trusting demons.

If the Dalish didn't really distinguish between spirits and demons, why would they call some spirits "demons"?  The Keeper tells Hawke that spirits and demons live in the Fade. The Keeper calls Audacity a "demon". Only Merrill insists on calling Audacity a spirit, but then she will call Torpor a demon.

Fenyriel seem to have been taught by the Keeper there's a difference with demons and spirits. The Keeper in Fenyriel's dream tells him "open himself up to the spirits", but Fenyriel gets upset saying "Spirits? You mean demons! Keeper Marethari warned me of this!"

Modifié par erilben, 22 mai 2011 - 06:37 .

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
The punishment is grotesquely oversized for the crime.

Then you're willing to grant that there is nothing wrong with forbidding magic in the first place?

The charge against blood magic is that it can control minds, that it requires living sacrifices to perform, and that it cannot be unlearned.

What would be an appropriate punishment for a mage, giving these, then?

Yes, he's saner than Meredith. I don't see how that makes him good.

How does it make him evil? What precisely does Gregoire do that is evil? There is no evidence he has raped or president over rapes, that he encourages abuse, or that he does anything other than watch over the mages as a jailer.

[ipgd]

Xilizhra wrote...

But those rules are transparent, and in the case of the Ferelden Circle, fairly applied. If the Circle itself had a prohibition on magic, would you say that's immoral or evil? That certain types of magic are forbidden is not in itself evil at all. There is a lot that is exploitative about the Circle and the Chantry rules that buffer it, but saying that blood magic is criminal is not at all evil.

The punishment is grotesquely oversized for the crime..

Intent is a matter in acts of "evil". Greagoir was working within his legal authority with full due process as outlined by the law. Whether or not the Rite of Tranquility itself is justified matters little, given that it is a long-standing institution that  he was raised to believe is justified. Believing the Rite and the laws surrounding it are appropriate, or just not critically analysing or challenging them, may make him ignorant, but it separates him from the kind of person who recognizes it as an inhumane punishment and enacts it because of that, or the kind of person who would knowingly step outside the limits of his legal authority in order to enact it (as Meredith does).

The people who set these laws into place may be "evil", but as a legal authority whose duty is to enforce the law, Greagoir is not. He was never obligate to individually decide which laws are just and which are archaic and in need of reform. He is just doing his job.

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
The punishment is grotesquely oversized for the crime.

Then you're willing to grant that there is nothing wrong with forbidding magic in the first place?

I personally prefer tight regulation and esoterism over the forbidding of blood magic or other kinds of dangerous magic.

I believe the study and knowledge of blood magic is more likely to wield better ways to resist it than refusing to study it. The ancient Tevinter Imperium could not have expanded and maintain an oligarchy for so long if the magisters didn't know how to deal with blood magic and demons.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 mai 2011 - 06:51 .

[Xilizhra]

The people who set these laws into place may be "evil", but as a legal authority whose duty is to enforce the law, Greagoir is not. He was never obligate to individually decide which laws are just and which are archaic and in need of reform. He is just doing his job.

Which makes him better than Meredith. But like I said, Quentin is better than Meredith. When comparing him to those templars who look beyond the confines of set duty, like Keran, Thrask and Maurevar Carver...

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
Which makes him better than Meredith. But like I said, Quentin is better than Meredith. When comparing him to those templars who look beyond the confines of set duty, like Keran, Thrask and Maurevar Carver...

Thrask is Gregoire. Thrask believes that templars ought to protect mages... but he fully believes in the Circle and its methods. So does Keran. Carver is actually the only templar we see undermine the Circle.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I personally prefer tight
regulation and esoterism over the forbidding of blood magic or other
kinds of dangerous magic.

That's not what I asked. What I asked was whether there was a moral objection to forbidding a school of magic.

I believe the study and knowledge of
blood magic is more likely to wield better ways to resist it than
refusing to study it. The ancient Tevinter Imperium could not have
expanded and maintain an oligarchy for so long if the magisters didn't
know how to deal with blood magic and demons.

That's an argument for studying it. But it isn't related to the question I raised, which is whether it would be morally unjustifiable to ban a school from study. We can call it lots of things - wrong, pigheaded, stubborn, etc. But does that make it immoral?

[Silfren]

Xilizhra wrote...

The people who set these laws into place may be "evil", but as a legal authority whose duty is to enforce the law, Greagoir is not. He was never obligate to individually decide which laws are just and which are archaic and in need of reform. He is just doing his job.

Which makes him better than Meredith. But like I said, Quentin is better than Meredith. When comparing him to those templars who look beyond the confines of set duty, like Keran, Thrask and Maurevar Carver...

Oh, my.  This won't be ending well.

[Xilizhra]

Thrask is Gregoire. Thrask believes that templars ought to protect mages... but he fully believes in the Circle and its methods. So does Keran. Carver is actually the only templar we see undermine the Circle.

Except when they both join an organized rebellion against the Circle; hell, Thrask is leading it. Greagoir never would do either.

[Silfren]

In Exile wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Which makes him better than Meredith. But like I said, Quentin is better than Meredith. When comparing him to those templars who look beyond the confines of set duty, like Keran, Thrask and Maurevar Carver...

Thrask is Gregoire. Thrask believes that templars ought to protect mages... but he fully believes in the Circle and its methods. So does Keran. Carver is actually the only templar we see undermine the Circle.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I personally prefer tight
regulation and esoterism over the forbidding of blood magic or other
kinds of dangerous magic.

That's not what I asked. What I asked was whether there was a moral objection to forbidding a school of magic.

I believe the study and knowledge of
blood magic is more likely to wield better ways to resist it than
refusing to study it. The ancient Tevinter Imperium could not have
expanded and maintain an oligarchy for so long if the magisters didn't
know how to deal with blood magic and demons.

That's an argument for studying it. But it isn't related to the question I raised, which is whether it would be morally unjustifiable to ban a school from study. We can call it lots of things - wrong, pigheaded, stubborn, etc. But does that make it immoral?

For my part, no, I don't consider the act of banning a school of magic from being studied to be inherently immoral, though I definitely find it to be stupidly short-sighted.  However, I do find it extremely immoral to ban a school of magic and then leave books on that subject lying around for the purpose of entrapping hapless apprentices.

[Silfren]

Xilizhra wrote...

Thrask is Gregoire. Thrask believes that templars ought to protect mages... but he fully believes in the Circle and its methods. So does Keran. Carver is actually the only templar we see undermine the Circle.

Except when they both join an organized rebellion against the Circle; hell, Thrask is leading it. Greagoir never would do either.

See, I don't believe this.  What you're forgetting is that Greagoir is a reasonable Knight Commander of a liberal Circle.  Thrask is a reasonable templar--not knight commander--of a viciously corrupt Circle. 

Given what we see of Greagoir, he may believe in the purpose of Circles wholeheartedly, but I think we can reasonably conclude that if Greagoir were the Knight Commander of Kirkwall, he would have cracked down on corrupt templars without hesitation.  I also think we can safely believe that Greagoir would have acted just as Thrask did in his situation--though I'd not like to see Greagoir get hit with the same Stupid Stick as everyone else in Kirkwall.

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

Except when they both join an organized rebellion against the Circle; hell, Thrask is leading it.

Their rebellion is against Meredith, not the Circle of Magi. For all we know, Thrask fully planned on taking Grace and her buddies back to the Circle should they have succeeded in overthrowing Meredith.

Greagoir never would do either.

Because Greagoir was never put in the shoes of Thrask or Keran, he's the Knight-Commander and didn't have to deal with Meredith. Thrask and company are simply knights under the command of Meredith.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 mai 2011 - 07:16 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...
That's an argument for studying it. But it isn't related to the question I raised, which is whether it would be morally unjustifiable to ban a school from study. We can call it lots of things - wrong, pigheaded, stubborn, etc. But does that make it immoral?

Wasn't my inent to question your argument, just throwing my 2 cents.

But no, I don't think it's "evil". Then again, I avoid using words like "good" and evil" as a general rule and prefer to use more objective terms.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 mai 2011 - 07:19 .

[Xilizhra]

See, I don't believe this. What you're forgetting is that Greagoir is a reasonable Knight Commander of a liberal Circle. Thrask is a reasonable templar--not knight commander--of a viciously corrupt Circle.

I wouldn't say Kinloch Hold is liberal, as such. It's okayish compared to the Gallows, but they still kill apostates for trumped-up reasons (see Wynne's apprentice), uphold the Rite of Tranquility, and drive plenty of mages to suicide. It's bad, just not outright hell.

Given what we see of Greagoir, he may believe in the purpose of Circles wholeheartedly, but I think we can reasonably conclude that if Greagoir were the Knight Commander of Kirkwall, he would have cracked down on corrupt templars without hesitation. I also think we can safely believe that Greagoir would have acted just as Thrask did in his situation--though I'd not like to see Greagoir get hit with the same Stupid Stick as everyone else in Kirkwall.

I doubt it. He'd likely have Cullenesque misgivings, but stay loyal to Meredith until she went totally bonkers and started accusing everyone of being blood mage thralls.

Their rebellion is against Meredith, not the Circle of Magi. For all we know, Keran and Thrask fully planned on taking Grace and her buddies back to the Circle should they have succeeded in overthrowing Meredith.

When Thrask happily helped Grace escape in Act 1?