4350 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I'd say it was substantial, maybe not for a RoA, but at least for an investigation, which Orsino brilliantly prevents, which leaves only one option.

Or simply remove him and appoint another First Enchanter.

If the Chantry has to annull everytime it gets an uncooperative FE, then there is something seriously wrong with the system.

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I doubt you learn blood magic instantanously the moment you make your deal with a demon.

That's how it works in Origins. Perhaps the knowledge is transmitted directly in the brain.

Does it? I don't recall that. You learn the basic specialization, but still have to "practice" the art.

I don't think the blood mages we see performed anything beyond basics.

The ones that summon demons were usually abominations.

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...

You don't have to think the whole circle is irredeemable to annull it.

Depends on which "you" you are referring to.  My Hawke has to believe people are guilty before slaughtering them.  If yours doesn't then so be it.

If the Chantry and Templars wanted to protect the general population from mages, they shouldn't have driven them to madness.  If they want to be considered anything other than an outright evil and corrupt organization, they should take their responsibility to protect the mages in the care seriously.  That means treating them well and not using a blood thirsty mob and an apostate as an excuse to murder them.

From what I see in Kirkwall, the people would be a lot safer if Meredith had been assassinated about 10 years before.  I just don't agree that the RoA is supposed to make Kirkwall safer.  Given it was the spark that ignited a general mage revolt it doesn't seem to have made anyone safer.

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If there were as many as 50 blood mages in the Circle, which most likely numbers a couple of hundred mages, I would say that the blood magic infestation was substantial enough to warrant a purge. We can't say for sure though how big the problem was, but judging from the amount of blood mages we face, I'd say it was substantial, maybe not for a RoA, but at least for an investigation, which Orsino brilliantly prevents, which leaves only one option.

I don't even think we see 50 blood mages in the end game, but even if we did that's still far less than half the population.  I'm all for an investigation - provided it includes interrogating the Templars to find out why the mages were pushed to this.

I'm not sure what I think of Orsino refusing to let Meredith do her search in the end game.  I mean, he knows that Meredith is nuts, so he knows she'll decide it means he's hiding something.  At the same time, he knows anything she finds will be seen in the worst possible light.  So he's really screwed either way.  Perhaps he's hoping the Grand Cleric will step in before it gets that bad.  My trouble is that only a complete zealot would act like Meredith does.  Really, either she gets to do anytihng she wants without any limits at all, or she kills everyone.  Those should not be the only choices.

[In Exile]

[quote]DKJaigen wrote...
No your wrong on that. Jowan made stupid mistakes but if he is so selfish then why would he stick around to safe eamon. furthermore its clear that Jowan poisoned the Arl because he was led to beleive that he was doing his country a favor.
[/quote]

It's great that Jowan thought that murdering one of the most powerful and most respect mean in the realm at the behest of another of the most powerful and most respect men in the realm was patriotic... but it was also very, very clearly murder. My point about Jowan is that he did not flitch do be a servant in a man's house, attempt to teach his child in secret, speak and work for his wife... and then murder him without flinching.

That's the human being that Jowan was.


[/quote]Same can be said for you and me.
[/quote]

...Maybe for you. I'm not about to go poison people in positions of power because other people in power told me to do it ''for the good of the country''.

There is an argument to be made that in a truly desperate situation most people would use any means neccesary... but then I think we can argue that the desperation situation itself excuses the means.

Poisoning Eamon (and using blood magic to be a 'better mage') were not desperate situations.


[quote]Thats not abuses, thats pragmatism and even i a fervent mage supporter realise thatyour own ability's must be controlled. Also some aspects of the chantry doesnt make sense. Why are the mages not allowed the aid the coomon people with magic. have a family and marriage, Because all these things would erode the people's fear of magic. And if people do not fear they are not as easily controlled by the chantry.
[/quote]

I agree with you - but you have to understand, some of the people are are the truly fervent mage supporters believe that the Circle shouldn't have the power to take children away from their families. I honestly consider myself a fervent mage supporter because, as it stands, I'm opposed to the Chantry, to their exploitation, and to the genocide that Meredith commited at the Gallows (as in, years prior, not just the RoA).

But there are people in this thread that take an even harder stance than that.

[quote]Do you beleive that the chantry is created for the common good? wake mate and learn about human history. Dicatators and religious institutions have controlled the masses for centuries with imagined fears. [/b] 
[/quote]

Not at all. But I do think the Chantry is a counter-balance for the mages, and that a secular but trans-national counter-balance has to continue existing for mages and non-mages to coexist.

The easiest way to see the hypocrisy of the Chantry is to realize that the phylactery is blood magic. Did no one realize that taking some blood from you to track you is Chantry sanctioned blood magic?

[In Exile]

Plaintiff wrote...

In Exile wrote...
Genocide is the right thing to do? Seriously? You're arguing that the system of rape and imprisonment is wrong, but the action done for the sole sake of having the Circle die brutally, to the last child, at the hands of the templars is justified?

You know what? Yes. That's exactly what I'm arguing. I have no real sympathy for individuals that did nothing to free themselves because they felt it was "safer" or "easier" to remain slaves in gilded cages. Even if the mages ultimately lose, and status quo is restored. I will still argue that Anders was in the right and that furthermore, mages should continue to attempt revolution as many times asit takes to secure their freedom.

Well, if we're jumping on the crazy-train, I suppose there's nothing left for you or I to debate. If you think it's justified to make choices for other people, to force them to die or suffer because you feel the cause is just... then that's being just as bad as the templars.

Because that's what the Circle is. The non-mages happen to think that all mages are so terrible, such a threat, that the need to lose the right to make choices for themselves so that others can be safe. That every mage has to be trapped and treated like a pariah for the sake of the greater good.

Well, you think that every mage needs to be willing to lay down their life and wellbeing for the Freedom ™, and that this cause justifies any and all means to do it. It's the same reasoning the Chantry uses - it's just in the service of freedom instead of security.

It does not follow, however, that sparking an Annulment is the same thing as offering the mages up for slaughter. Anders fully expects them to fight back and condemns Orsino and other senior mages for failing to stand up to the tyranny of the Chantry before now. He will leave the group to defend the mages, except under specific circumstances that currently don't exist in-game. He's forcing them to take action. Mages need to survive, if only to spread the word to other Circles. If they just bent over and took it, he'd acheive nothing.

Shockingly, the mages didn't want that. But just like you said above: you don't care if the mages don't want to gleefuly die in a crusade for their freedom. It was clear what the mages really wanted to do: have a Circle that works. That was their rebellion in Kirkwall. That was their work with the templars. That was the cause they were willing to throw their lives away from. There were plenty of mages happy and willing to die for a guilded cage that worked.

Anders wants them to fight back - he thinks other mages should have his value: freedom at all costs. That's no different from a templar who believes all mages should value their virtue: security no matter what.

He's forcing mages to choose between death or his ideal world. Which is not very different than the choice the templars give every mage at birth or at the Harrowing.

It's ironic how similar Anders is to the Chantry, in his philosophy. And you, apparently.

[Ryzaki]

GavrielKay wrote...
Depends on which "you" you are referring to.  My Hawke has to believe people are guilty before slaughtering them.  If yours doesn't then so be it.

If the Chantry and Templars wanted to protect the general population from mages, they shouldn't have driven them to madness.  If they want to be considered anything other than an outright evil and corrupt organization, they should take their responsibility to protect the mages in the care seriously.  That means treating them well and not using a blood thirsty mob and an apostate as an excuse to murder them.

From what I see in Kirkwall, the people would be a lot safer if Meredith had been assassinated about 10 years before.  I just don't agree that the RoA is supposed to make Kirkwall safer.  Given it was the spark that ignited a general mage revolt it doesn't seem to have made anyone safer.

Eh. My Hawke places the needs of the many over the needs of the few. If one slaughter stops an even greater one than he will drench himself in blood to save the other lives. 

That said I agree about the Chantry and the Templars doing their job poorly. 

[The Earl Of Bronze]

Rifneno wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Demons are spirits though. They just operate differently than spirits like Justice or Faith. We've seen firsthand how dangerous spirits can be. Wynne almost kills herself (again. Does she like dying?) trying to use Faith's power and Justice was able to be, as far as we know, warped into a complete demon (I'm of the opinion that he's spirit and demon intertwined as one).

She tried to use Faith's power out of desperation, and she didn't know it would almost kill her.  Neither did Faith, from the impression I got.  The spirit healer specialization even says templars watch closely over spirit healers because these are mages that have shown they'll deal with Fade creatures.  Meaning even the templars aren't worried a good spirit will turn bad, and that it's common enough practice for them to have guidelines on it.  Lastly, I don't have a link to it, but I recall DG saying a spirit possessing someone is different than a demon possessing someone.  Which indicates that there is indeed a fundamental difference.

Also, I think the Primeval Thaig is just as likely a candidate for the quote about the prison being breached too, but considering the Veil was torn in the Circle's basement and in Kirkwall, it could also be about the Veil growing weaker.

Wouldn't that be more "the prison's bars grow softer" or something though?  Breached more indicates a sudden, definite change rather than a slow shift over long periods of time.  Besides, there's nothing to indicate the veil is any different than it's always been outside of Kirkwall.

RangerSG wrote...

Given the Ferelden Circle is reformed with a mage PC in Origins, I don't think the *only* way was Anders. He was as whacked as Meredith by then.

Except, of course, that it doesn't get reformed.  You can ask for the boon as a mage, but the Chantry says no.  But don't take my word for it, take a dev almost outright mocking the idea that the Chantry would peacefully reform: here

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I think spirits and demons are better served as tools, for instance in war. Apparently the Tevinter Imperium used them and still maintained control.

Do we have any indication of that beyond Tarohne's mad ravings though?  It could easily be the demon just convinced her of that so she'd help it into the real world.

The Earl Of Bronze wrote...

Orsino aided the blood mage who harvested the body parts, including your mothers head, he gave him texts to help him, didn't stop his experiments even though he knew all about them. You find out early on that Orsino was involved when you find that letter signed with an "O". I would have liked to confront Orsino earlier but you can't. He did nothing when he should have done something.

1. We all know he helped Orsino. Some of us, however, are unconvinced he was doing so with knowledge of Quentin's real crimes. The letter is unspecific in many details, including date and anything except research of necromancy. We also found a note that indicated Quentin was experimenting on ways to preserve tissue; it's not out of the realm of possibility that Orsino only meant something that simple and was told that he was using corpses already dead rather than killing people to make a zombie wife.
2. He should have done something? Okay, let's say he rats on Quentin. Meredith uses it as ammunition against the Circle, as he says she would've and common sense indicates. Now Leandra is saved! Yay! Whoops, now Bethany's dead. And Leandra wishes it was her instead. ... I guess it's not as black and white as "he should've done something."
3. Saying you should've been able to confront him on the O letter is ridiculous. Yes, we as players of a video game know it's likely to be the First Enchanter because that's just how video games go. Hawke, however, lives is a large city with thousands of people whose name begins with the letter O. This is like finding a man shot in Las Vegas who tells you "It was T--*dies*" and immediately thinking "Oh my God! Donald Trump killed this man!"

The Earl Of Bronze wrote...

Hawke will have had an idea at least who was helping him, expecially considering that Orsino was one of the few people with access to such texts that the blood mage needed.

Riiight. Nobody has free access to books teaching forbidden arts like the guy living right next to Knight Commander McCarthy.

The Earl Of Bronze wrote...

Look at the result, all the circles in revolt, did Orsino want just to protect the mages or free them? Blood magic spells control others, doesn't seem that far out that he could influence other mages? I think we only see the true Orsino when his back is against the wall at the end of the game. And the other mages seemed way too eager to be part of his harvester ritual, unless they had prior knowledge of such.

Yes indeed, look at the result! All the Circles revolted after Orsino died, clearly he was using blood magic to control thousands of mages across thousands of miles all while dead! My God, it's all so clear now!

Orsino shows himself as a practiced blood mage at the end, he hasn't all of a sudden mastered the art. He helped Quentin, even encouraged him, he gave Quentin tomes only someone in his position would have access to.  As I said previously Hawkes presemce upsets the balance, forces Orsino to reveal himself through the harvester ritual, Orsino didn't want the confrontation with the templars he wasn't ready, he was trying to infest their ranks, but again Hawke gets in the way. Orsinos ultimate goal was to free the mages, he died before he could achieve this, because Hawke accelerated events beyond Orsinos control. 

Just ideas btw

Modifié par The Earl Of Bronze, 23 mai 2011 - 08:00 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...
Eh. My Hawke places the needs of the many over the needs of the few. If one slaughter stops an even greater one than he will drench himself in blood to save the other lives. 

How does he feels at the end?

Not trying to be sarcastic, I am genuinely curious how you rp him (or was it her?). Does he / she feel regret seeing how they failed to prevent war?

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
Eh. My Hawke places the needs of the many over the needs of the few. If one slaughter stops an even greater one than he will drench himself in blood to save the other lives. 

How does he feels at the end?

Not trying to be sarcastic, I am genuinely curious how you rp him (or was it her?). Does he / she feel regret seeing how they failed to prevent war?

Absolutely furious. He wants to blow up everyone sky high by the end of the game (well except those staying out of it)  He's angry at the Chantry for letting Meredith's get away with all that crap, irked at  Elthina for being so useless, mad at the templars for them not going "Okay this woman is crazy." earlier, mad at Orsino for housing bloodmages among the mages, pities the mages that weren't bloodmages that he had to kill and feels regret for killing them he'll have to carry that all his life but he will always see it as the lesser evil. 

Yes. He blames himself for not stopping Anders, for not trying to usurp Meredith, for finding that stupid idol, for not warning Elthina. (I love characters who pile undeserved blame on themselves.  )  

Really I see him vanishing into the mists to try to find some way to end the war as quickly as possible. If he can't stop it he might as well finish it as quickly as he can to minimize the casulties. 

This is my more aggressive neutral Hawke though. He was fun to RP. 

Still not sure what name to give him. I call him Leo but that seems weak. Plus I have like 2 other Hawkes named Leo. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 23 mai 2011 - 08:11 .

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...

Eh. My Hawke places the needs of the many over the needs of the few. If one slaughter stops an even greater one than he will drench himself in blood to save the other lives. 

But there aren't a "few" mages, there are hundreds and in all likelihood most of them are just as innocent as the civilians you want to protect.  Why judge a civilian life as more worthy of protection than the mages?  There isn't really any reason to believe that the citizens of Kirkwall can't be protected by the joint forces of the city guard and Templars should Meredith decide to try that route.  We know civilians end up at risk either way - so why would the RoA be so much better for the population than not doing it?

[KnightofPhoenix]

All Hawkes should hang their heads in shame.

Ryzaki wrote...
I call him Leo but that seems weak.

And perfectly adequate.

And yea, I am still not over my disliking of Hawke.

[Ryzaki]

GavrielKay wrote...
But there aren't a "few" mages, there are hundreds and in all likelihood most of them are just as innocent as the civilians you want to protect.  Why judge a civilian life as more worthy of protection than the mages?  There isn't really any reason to believe that the citizens of Kirkwall can't be protected by the joint forces of the city guard and Templars should Meredith decide to try that route.  We know civilians end up at risk either way - so why would the RoA be so much better for the population than not doing it?

The amount of mages in the tower are vastly lower than the amount of citizens in the city. 

The mages are more dangerous than the civilians without even meaning to be. 

He cannot choose to escort the mages back to the tower, only to release them completely no matter what abominations or bloodmages may be among them. These abominations and bloodmages may later do far more damage than if my Hawke had just killed them all. 

The citizes of Kirkwall need those demons and abominations *gone* why should innocent guards die because of mages? RoA is better to my Hawke because it ends the fight quicker, the demons are gone faster and the civilians aren't under attack as long. 

That is why they rank lower than the civilians to my Hawke. 

Now if there was a third option to beat the snuff out of Meredith and tell the mages to get back in the circle this Hawke would choose that. Alas it's either kill em all or let em all go. Not much of a choice. 

Edit: As you said the judgement varies from Hawke to Hawke. This is perfectly acceptable jugement to my Hawke. For some it's weak, for others ridculous, but for mine its perfect.
 

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

All Hawkes should hang their heads in shame.

 

Plot railroading isn't Hawke's fault. 

And perfectly adequate. 

And yea, I am still not over my disliking of Hawke.

Harsh. Poor Hawke. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 23 mai 2011 - 08:22 .

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
All Hawkes should hang their heads in shame.

Ryzaki wrote...
I call him Leo but that seems weak.

And perfectly adequate.

And yea, I am still not over my disliking of Hawke.

Well, Hawke is no Cousland or Aeducan. What would a peasant or soldier know of politics.

Modifié par klarabella, 23 mai 2011 - 08:20 .

[Ryzaki]

klarabella wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
All Hawkes should hang their heads in shame.

Ryzaki wrote...
I call him Leo but that seems weak.

And perfectly adequate.

And yea, I am still not over my disliking of Hawke.

Well, Hawke is not Cousland or Aeducan. What would a peasant know of politics.

But the CE/DE/DC knows more politics than Hawke.  That's a damn shame. (Frankly I was a bit weirded out how knowledgeable the DE could be about human politics. ) 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 23 mai 2011 - 08:20 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...
Well, Hawke is not Cousland or Aeducan. What would a peasant know of politics.

You'd be surprised. Other than modern examples, a medieval example is Almanzor in Muslim Spain. That guy was a political mastermind, and he started off as a peasant in Algeciras (though since they were educated and literate then, maybe it's a bit different).

Incidently, his story would have been an excellent plot line for a game that claims to be about a rise to power.

[Silfren]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]Silfren wrote...
No doubt.  I don't like the idea of allowing mages like Jowan to be so manipulated.  Sure, you could catch potential troublemakers like Uldred, but I don't think Jowan was really ever a threat. He says himself that he studied blood magic because he thought it would make him a better mage, and insists he didn't know anything about demons.  I think he's an example of a mage who let innocent curiosity get the better of him, and I find it very difficult to condemn someone for that, especially when the goddamn forbidden books are left within easy access of the apprentices. [/quote]

I don't particularly like it when anyone is used as pawns. I can relate to the situation that Irving is in - sacrifices for the greater good and so on.
[/quote]

I can relate to the crappy situation Irving is in...moreso, having replayed the scene between him and the Mage Warden where she asks about Jowan being made Tranquil.  But yes, I still find his practice abhorrent.  

[quote]
That being said, why isn't Jowan a threat? He's a liar and pretty selfish (e.g. worked with Loghain to poison Eamon). He says he studied blood magic because he thought it would make him a better mage, but it isn't clear at all where that progression ends.

I happen to think Jowan would have easily justified mind-control or the more sadistic aspects of blood magic if the right opportunity came along, as easily as he justified poisoning the Arl.
[/quote]

This could be more a case of meta-gaming, but one thing I've always found to be lacking in character interactions is subtlety.  If you know anything at all about body language and pay attention to what people say and how they say it, it's generally easy to tell when someone is lying if they're not a practiced liar.  But both Origins and DA2 make it as easy to figure out when a character is and isn't lying as it is when watching a soap opera or a children's program.  It's painfully obvious when characters are lying, and when they're not, whether it's Loghain, Anders, Jowan, or even a minor NPC like Idunna.  So yes, it's obvious that Jowan is lying early on about not using blood magic, but it's also obvious later on when he's finally coming clean.  

So I don't think Jowan's a threat because I believe him when he finally admits that he dabbled with blood magic, and only because he thought it would make him a better mage.  He never once comes across to me as a mage who wanted whatever power blood magic could give him, but was mostly just curious about it.  He may be foolish and reckless, and yes, those things can be dangerous in themselves, but that doesn't equate to his seeking the power to dominate others.

As for his poisoning of Arl Eamon, well, Jowan states flat out that he did so at Loghain's behest, and adds "Why wouldn't I trust Teyrn Loghain?"  The fact is that at the beginning of Origins, Loghain is considered a liberating hero by all of Ferelden, and he has a well established reputation as a patriot who would do anything to protect his nation.  So it may seem gullible to the rest of us, but it's a fair point.  Given Loghain's reputation and status, a great many people would not believe he had anything but Ferelden's best interests at heart if he told them to do something that, coming from anyone else, would seem insanity.  And Jowan also points out that Loghain offered to settle things with the Chantry so that Jowan wouldn't be facing execution.  I can absolutely see a case where Jowan, having heard all his life of the great Hero of River Dane, would not have any reason to believe Loghain had malicious intent, and also being baited by the carrot of escaping punishment, would be eager to do whatever he was told.  And, since there is also some indication that Loghain didn't actually intend to kill Eamon but to keep him incapacitated until he had secured his position, that Jowan didn't think he was putting anyone's life in danger.  Gullible and stupid, sure, and criminally so, but not evil. 

[quote]
I just think it's important to point out that a lot of the abuses of the Circle system, even if mages are granted freedoms, won't go away.

Children will still need to be taken from their parents to be trained. Even if you have absolutely freedom for mages (e.g. Tevinter), that's just the cost effective way to do it. If mages forbid blood magic themselves, for example,
[/quote]
I, and others, have said repeatedly that we don't have a problem with children having to go to a school for training.  What we object to is the forced and permanent removal of children from their families, to say nothing of not telling parents where their children are going, threatening them, and even taking the children away in chains.  I'm getting a little sick of having to repeat myself, frankly.  I have said time and time and bloody time again that I'm okay with children having to go away for training.  

[/quote]

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

klarabella wrote...
Well, Hawke is not Cousland or Aeducan. What would a peasant know of politics.

You'd be surprised. Other than modern examples, a medieval example is Almanzor in Muslim Spain. That guy was a political mastermind, and he started off as a peasant in Algeciras (though since they were educated and literate then, maybe it's a bit different).

Incidently, his story would have been an excellent plot line for a game that claims to be about a rise to power.

I ignore the "rise to power" part. My Hawke more stumbled upon it.

I don't mind playing someone who's not a genius, political or otherwise.

[In Exile]

Rifneno wrote...
Remind me where a sister or mother of the Chantry is referred to as a nun.

That was my bad - I haven't played the game long enough to remember the terminology. The point still stands, though. Your busy in justifying the holy war against the Chantry - but how does this actually serve the cause of freedom for the mages?

A complex answer, unfortunately. What should be done, or what do they deserve? I'm not a fan of torture for the sake of torture. Not only does it not solve anything, in many cases it winds up turning one into the type of monster they're trying to punish. So my answer to what should be done with them is execution. What do they deserve? They deserve to feel every bit of suffering they've inflicted upon others. They should be trapped in a hell of reliving every bit of pain, terror, sorrow, and general trauma they've caused others.

How does destroying the Chantry and forcing a war with the organized and now dedicated and fanatic templars achieve this? How does Kerras suffer if the mages start the war he was (likely) wanking himself off to every night?

All that these lunatics want to do is to kill or lobotomize every mage in Thedas. And Anders just consipired to give them the excuse to do it. That's the person you're trying to defend. That's why I think the attack on the Chantry was idiotic. It empowers the very murders that should be targeted in the first place.

Oh? And what do you think will get the Chantry to become caring mentors rather than brutal tyrants? Give me a minute to finish my coke first if you're going to say diplomacy though. Stings when you burst out laughing while drinking.

I don't think diplomacy is the option - the Chantry's failure to respond to the clamoring of mages for change showed that.

The mages need to force the Chantry to recognize their cause. If it comes down to war, I support it. The war I support is the kind that doesn't begin with a massive recruitment drive for the Chantry, a complete erosion of popular goodwill, and an ideal justification for a templar genocide.

Like I said before: were I in Kirkwall I would support striking the first blow against the templars for independence. But that blow would be against the templars in the Gallows, not pointless against the ineffectual Grand Cleric. If Elthina's shown anything, it's that if the mages were to take over the Gallows, she'd like to all of nothing.

Which would be a valid point if Leliana didn't tell Hawke that the Chantry has only allowed such things for the purpose of keeping an eye on the troublemakers.

But does the Chantry then force these mages to "dissapear,'' so to speak? The Chantry won't willing give the Circles complete freedom, ever. But there is room for forcing cooler heads to the negotiating table over increased rights for mages, if you can force the Chantry to the negotiation table, as I said above. And if that can't be done, then we can have the holy war that you're clamoring for. But without the insanity. And, ironically, my worst case scenario for the mages is their genocide in Kirkwall (through templar military action)... which is Ander's (and Plaintiff's, apparently), totally-OK if it happens because freedom is worth it scenario.

"Martyr of the great cause." Good God. Could you heap any more real life villain quotes into fake dialogue to demonize characters you don't like? This is like if some of us (pro-mage) started referring to Circles as "concentration camps."

Are you familiar with the UN definition of genocide? What Meredith does in Kirkwall, very likely since Act II (and depending on how you push the definition, the Circles themselves from the start) is genocide. Calling Circles concetration camps is idiotic because that's not what they are. But (for example) refering to what the Chantry is doing (at least in Kirkwall) as a slow and protracted genocide is not. And there shouldn't be any reason to shy away from that.

You're so focused on defending Anders that you can't actually see the insane commitment he has to his cause. But at this point, I'm starting to wonder if you're not equally commitment to '' all mages should either die or be free, irrespective of what they want'' camp.

Anyway, no. "You've doomed us all!" "We were already doomed." It's quite clear it's not that he doesn't care about their safety, it's that he feels the Kirkwall Circle was already going to die. And the case could certainly be made that he's right.

It doesn't matter. Like I said: the situation in Kirkwall is a protracted genocide. But that still doesn't give Anders the right to put every mage on his altar of sacrifice and demand they die for his cause the way he likes.

It's like shooting someone who would be guaranteed to die anyway. Even if that were true, you'd still be a murderer. And that's what Anders is. Not for what he did to the Chantry (though he certainly murdered those people) but for what he did to the mages in Kirkwall.

Like Plaintiff, you're so caught up in freedom-at-all-costs that you can't even see that I'm in no way a templar backer. Saying that Anders is a murder and has the blood of the Kirkwall Circle on his hands =! the Chantry is justified, or the Circle status quo should continue to exist, or any of these things.

I would. You're naive if you think war is fought by tiptoeing around anyone not carrying AK-47s. They say "war is hell" for a reason. Because war is hell. Real war is not like an action movie where the good guys never have to get their hands bloody and it's all sunshine and rainbows at the end.

That was an argument for moral culpability. Simply put, the civilian leadership is many degrees of separation removed from the on-the-ground activities of the soliders that leadership nominally commands.

If you're going to argue for tactical worth, then, well, see below:

I'm not saying it's okay to bomb a government funded shelter for orphans, but if an attack on an enemy government building will reasonably help your war efforts, it's a valid target.

I keep asking this, but how does leaving the entire command structure of the enemy army intact, and spurring them to kill every single one of you helping the war effort?

Killing the civilian leadership is maybe a blow against morale. But the entire templar command structure is independent from the Chantry. So the military value of the Chantry is zilch. In fact, it likely has negative value, because it just killed the religious icon for a bunch of fanatics. It forced the mages into a conflict they didn't choose for themselves (so their morale is low) and it did so at a time when the mage formations were a mess (some mages outside the Gallows, some inside).

It was so not actually helping the war effort that's it's nonsensical to even advocate it as such.

Oh wow. I so want to make a sarcastic reply about how you're okay with stealing people's souls for your "grand cause!™" but I'm sure someone wouldn't get it. So I'll just have to settle for pointing out you're advocating a small-scale version of everything you complain about Anders for.

No, I'm not. I said that I can relate to why Irving would want to do it - not that I think it's moral or justified. But you're too busy thinking of me as an antagonist to see what I believe.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Silfren wrote...

It does put me in mind of Anders' comment in Awakening that he hated the First Enchanter.  I never really understood why, but I'd wager Irving's willingness to sacrifice the Jowans of the world was one of the reasons.  I'd hate him too, frankly.

Yeah, thinking about it, it would be easy for Anders to hate someone who was complaisant in the status quo.

I think the key to Anders' personality is that he is absolutely against the current system.  He believes that anything is better than what is happening to the mages now - even death.  Now, there are likely lots of mages who would disagree and would rather live whatever life was offerend than none at all, but Anders with Justice on board doesn't care about that.

For 1000 years the citizenry have been feeling safer at the mage's expense.  It isn't too hard to imagine Anders/Justice wanting to send a very clear public message that some mages are tired of it.

a lot of people have said that the two incarnations of Anders are completely different people, but really they aren't. Anders was a fairly dark and twisted person in Awakening. He just covered it up very well using jokes as a defense mechanism.

• He makes no secret of how he hates Chantry oversight
  
• He wants to kill every Templar in creation
  
• The only reason he dislikes the notion of mages pulling away from the Circle is because it would lead to death, though in DA2 he does see this as better than what they have to suffer now.
  
• Wasn't he torn away from his family in chains? That had to have affected his mindset.
  
• The solitary confinement for a year probably didn't help either.
  
• He took joy in watching a possessed Mr. Wiggums kill 3 Templars. Then again, who wouldn't? That would make me start laughing uncontrollably.

Sorry, I don't really buy that Anders was dark or twisted in Awakening.  Yes, he hates Chantry oversight, but that alone hardly means anything.  Nowhere do we hear that he wants to kill every templar in creation.  He even says himself in dialogue that "they're not murderers."  I think we see a profound dislike and distrust, yes, but nothing approaching outright hatred.  The only reference he makes that comes close is when he talks about shooting lightning at fools, and he's clearly being sarcastic in that exchange.  The closest thing we get is his remark about Mr Wiggums, but I still think was more a case of morbid humor than outright hatred and bloodthirst.

[In Exile]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I doubt you learn blood magic instantanously the moment you make your deal with a demon. So the mages we fight during the RoA were blood mages even before the Right was called.

I've never seen the templar ending, but when you side with the mages, you don't see any Circle mage save Orsino use blood magic. There are mages possessed by demons.. but we already saw innocent and scared mages get overwhelmed without any pact (e.g. saving Fenrayel, sp?).

[In Exile]

Ryzaki wrote...

You don't have to think the whole circle is irredeemable to annull it.

Wait - are you saying you think there's a reason to annul the Circle when you believe explicitly it includes killing innocents?

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...
I ignore the "rise to power" part. My Hawke more stumbled upon it.

I don't mind playing someone who's not a genius, political or otherwise.

I do ignore the rise to power part (despite feeling that my intelligence was insulted by the marketing) but I find nothing else in the story to compensate. It just feels like a void nothing now.

I don't mind playing non-genuises. I mind playing a lazy useless PC whose role and purpose in the plot is not clear or that relevent.

Geralt of Rivia is not a political mastermind, he's just a monster slayer. But his pro-active and often decisive role in the plot amidst political intrigue (and him having enough intelligence to understand what's going on) makes him one of my favorite PCs ever.

He isn't like my Arcturus Cousland or Dain Aeducan (and who is quite frankly? ), but I greatly enjoy playing as him. Playing as Hawke on the otherhand is just unpleasant.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 mai 2011 - 08:32 .

[Ryzaki]

In Exile wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

You don't have to think the whole circle is irredeemable to annull it.

Wait - are you saying you think there's a reason to annul the Circle when you believe explicitly it includes killing innocents?

...My snark meter is broken. 

It broke earlier this week. Please tell me this is snark. 

[TEWR]

Silfren he does say he wants to kill every Templar in creation. At the tree in Amaranthine, he says he wants to shoot lightning at fools and settle down with a nice girl. You tell him he's aiming too low and he replies back with "True, I want to shoot fireballs at every Templar in creation."