4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

The Baconer wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Erm, only one blood mage was going on a rampage through the streets. There were a few more in the Gallows, but...

Bloodragers, maleficar that attack you after leaving the de Launcet house...

They were a street gang! They had nothing to do with the Annulment!

[TJPags]

Rifneno wrote...

TJPags wrote...

You know, you may be right, Rifneno.  That could be considered rude, and if so, I apologize to Lob.

That said, if you look back on what started that sequence with Lob and I, you'll see that it had nothing to do with Meredith, abuse of mages, or anything else.  It was a comment regarding mages escaping, not the reasons for it.  The poster I initially responded to said the Templars could have just locked the mages in the Gallows during the end game.  I mentioned that since there was no indication that mages could be kept in the Gallows throughout the game, there's no reason to expect it to be different now.

That has nothing to do with reasons.  If someone says "we should just keep minors from drinking", and I respond that "all efforts to do so in the past have been only of limited success", that has nothing to do with WHY minors drink.

There was no reason for Lob to bring up Templar abuses in response to that discussion.

Ahh.  I thought you meant it in reference to the ongoine general mage/templar debates.  My mistake, sorry.  I really should stop getting involved in them myself.  I love a good lively civil debate, but some aspects of this annoy me until I start snapping at people for no reason.  *sigh*

Fair enough, no harm no foul on my end.

I enjoy lively debate, as I think you know  , and generally try to remain civil.

There are, obviously, a number of factors that are included in the mage/templar disucssion.  Not all of them are relevant to every aspect of the discussion.  I get frustrated sometimes when people bring up topic B during a discussion of topic A if they're not related or relevant.  If there, say, 12 separate points to discuss (and I just pulled that number out of noplace), there's nothing wrong with sometimes discussing them separately, as I see it.  After all, I actually agree on some pro-mage aspects of the debate.  On the whole, I clearly end up pro-templar, but that's based on a weighing of the totality.  It doesn't mean I'm blind to winning arguments on your end.

[Augustei]

IanPolaris wrote...

The mages loved the circles and chantry SO MUCH that when a real opportunity and incentive to break away presented themselves, not one decided to stay.

That by itself says volumes.

-Polaris

The original chance for them to attempt to break way was in cumberland, and the majority were seemingly in favor of staying since we heard nothing more of it. So they must not have hated the circles so much. Not to mention the circles were originally the mages idea.. But something tells me Kirkwalls mages were the primary source of libertarians / resolutionists.. cause that was one really bad circle

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 08 mai 2011 - 05:40 .

[The Baconer]

Xilizhra wrote...
They were a street gang! They had nothing to do with the Annulment!

So? The Annulment means every mage in Kirkwall must be executed. A roving band of blood mages and their mind-controlled thrall mudering their way across the streets of Hightown would certainly make for a fine argument in favor of Annulment. The common people of Kirkwall aren't going to think of them as "A rogue group of maleficar who are by no means affiliated with the Circle" they're going to hear, "A rogue group of maleficar".

[Xilizhra]

Given how anti-templar the common people actually are, I doubt you're entirely correct. And it doesn't matter, as my Hawke wiped them out.

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Of course some mages dislike the Circle. That is unavoidable. Some farmers also dislike thier farms. Should we tear down all farms all over the world because of that? Now I know you are going to argue that "But the farmer can always choose to be something else, or work on another farm", which isn't correct. He could, in theory try to, yes, but that won't be guarenteed. A mage can, most likely, ask for transfer to another Circle, and a mage can never stop being a mage, unless he gets tranquiled.

Templars going after the family of an apostate is not abuse. That is going after their target, the apostate. The Tempalrs are out to find an apostate, which tehy know have family in Kirkwall. Are they to completely ignore that? Or should they go pay the family a visit to see if they have had contact with their apostate child?
If they have harbored and assisted the apostate, it is illegal, and effectively harboring a criminal, which is why they get punished. Again, that is not abuse, that is simply how things work in Thedas.
I never claimed some Templars didn't abuse the mages. I claimed that people are blowing the issue way out of proportions.

Bad analogy is bad.  Disliking your job is so not the same thing as disliking imprisonment.

And questioning a family after an apostate may not be abuse, but siccing a death squad on someone for feeding her cousin is.  But then, you're the guy who referred to actual stated cases of rape and illegal Tranquiling and torture as "abuse."  Not player interpreations even, but concrete examples provided by the damn game.  Anyone who is willing to dismiss rape, especially, as "abuse" is just...well.  

[The Baconer]

Xilizhra wrote...

Given how anti-templar the common people actually are, I doubt you're entirely correct.

Correct, there are many who are anti-templar. But there are also many who are in favor of Meredith's policies.

And it doesn't matter, as my Hawke wiped them out.

Cool story bro.

[Augustei]

Xilizhra wrote...

Given how anti-templar the common people actually are, I doubt you're entirely correct. And it doesn't matter, as my Hawke wiped them out.

How anti-templar the common people are? As in essentially not at all anti-templar? In Kirkwall the anti-templar commoners would probably number more than the rest of thedas, but still be in the minority.. And in the rest of thedas they would be definitly in the minority. Especially in the Anderfels and Orlais. (Rivain would be probably the only ones anti-templar)

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 08 mai 2011 - 05:53 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...
The Chantry cares nohting for the Bann of wherethehellamI's lands. No, they really don't.
With the Chantry being an outside institusion, they can actually step in and send mages at all. had it been up to politicians, the army would have been lucky to have recieved any at all.[/quote]

They care about other things, like assisting Orlesian occupation of Ferelden. Lyrium trade and relations with Orzammar...etc. Their interest in politics is there, but on a different scale.

And enough with the villification of politicians. If Ferelden's crown had jurisdiction over the mages, they can send them to war decisevily whenever they are needed. The Crown was what requested them in the first place. Why would mages become tools of individual banns when the Circle would be under Crown jurisdiction?
If Ferelden in particular can't handle it, it's because of its outdated feudal system which should change. Not all states suffer the same problem. The problem is thus not with the idea, but with the state in question. Which does not justify the Chantry's monopoly's continued existence.

And the Chantry doesn't step in, that's the point. Not unless they get their ass kicked for decades. [/quote]
A state is always mirred in the self-interrest of the politicians in power. The Bann of Dragon's Peak will always be more inerrested in defending Dragon's Peak than anywhere else. And if he felt, the Crown didn't do waht was best in defense of Dragon's Peak, he would retract support of the Crown. Unless you want to argue that the Crown should use its own mages to force the nobility under heel, and form even more ruthless dictatorships. No. The Circles are best kept under an international institution, never the individual states.

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
[quote]
And why would the Chantry ever give up the secrets of Templar trainning? So that they could diminish their own power? What a great idea.[/quote]

Who said they would give it willingly?
States should throw the institution in the garbage of history, or limit its power considerably and take the secrets for themselves.

No where did I say that I don't understand why the Chantry isn't doing all this. I know exactly why. States however should stop caring about Chantry power. [/quote]
The Chantry would rather destroy the knowledge of Templar trainning than let it be publicly known. And if a state is ever going to ignore the Chantry, they will effectively be ignoring the biggest shaker on the power scene. Which is incredibly stupid.

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
[quote]
A single Abomination has been known to destroy entire cities. A single Abomination could have been disastrous for Ferelden. Two could have been apocalyptical. Luckily an Abomination is rare, and the most powerful ones even more so. Nevertheless, the chances of them possessing mages, are everpresent. And needs to be accounted.[/quote]

No, small villages.
And when they are not under the constant supervision of Templars / Templar like warriors. Like they would be if in an army.

Your apocalyptic vision of things is amusing. Had it been the case, Kirkwall would have been erased from existence a long time ago.[/quote]
Or perhaps the Templars in Kirkwall have just been exceptionally effective.

It just proves that you don't know the threat Abominations pose. The codex clearly states, that Abominations are extremely dangerous and that they have caused the loss of entire cities, and are responsbile for some of the biggest disasters in the history of Thedas. Abominations are a constant threat, of varying level. To completely ignore it as "Meh, they can't possibly be that powerful" will just be your undoing.

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
[quote]
I said that genocide wasn't exactly what the Divine called for, [/quote]

How do you know? [/quote]
Because she called for an Exalted March against Kirkwall. Not genocide against Kirkwall. That genocide in Kirkwall was likely to happen, and that the Divine probably expected that, doesn't matter.

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
[quote]
Would it? If the Kirkwall Circle had succesfully rebelled, and created a new Tevinter, I bet the Divine would have felt pretty stupid not having called for an Exalted March. [/quote]

There is something called self-fullfilling prophecy.

She can consider an Exalted march as a last resort, when she is at least trying to investigate other options, like removing Meredith. But she is not.  Her main priority should have been to alleviate popular anger aganst the Templars which would have been instrumental in restoring order. Not make it worse. 

And I am not even mentionning the international implicatosn of such an act. [/quote]
Her main priority should be the security of Thedas. The Templars were only disliked in Kirkwall. Not the rest of Thedas. She finds the threat of a new Tevinter forming in Kirkwall to be incredibly present. It was the job of the Grand Cleric to alleviate the anger towards the Templars, she failed that. The Divine has to think in a much bigger picture. If Kirkwall was the price for international security, she may have been willing to pay it. Ultimately we will never know, as the **** hit the fan before the decission was made.

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
[quote]
When the potential loss/threat outweighs the potential gain, it is sometimes easier to call blank slate. Destroy Kirkwall, burn it down to the ground and be rid of that cesspit.[/quote]

Zevran: "Committing genocide just because something might happen is more than the mark of a weak mind. It is insanity."

And I agree. If the only thing the Chantry thinks it can do is genocide against Andrastrians to fix its problems, then it's not the institution needed to handle this (wasn't the point of the Chantry to help save lives?). Off with it and replace it with something more efficient. [/quote]
It is to save lives. Can you tell me, right here and right now, with the data we got available. Which would have cost the mkost lives, an Exalted March on Kirkwall, or the mage war we face now? You can't, neither can the Divine, but nevertheless these are the things she needs to take into consideration when contemplating the big decisions.
I am of the belief that the Exalted March would have been voer with rather quickly, a City state can't stand against the combined forces of Thedas. And the situation would have been controlled. The mage war we face now, is an ongoing conflict, which will end up costing many more lives, than the Exalted March would ever had cost. The Divine should have called it, and she should have done so earlier, then the situation would have been salvagable, at the cost of Kirkwall.

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
[quote]
The support of the Kirkwall people is completely irrelevant when Kirkwall is the target of the Exalted March. The Chantry still had the support of the rest of Thedas. Actually, the Divine should have called for the Exalted March earlier, while the situation was still remotely containable.[/quote]

Yes, because no one is going to see this Exalted March for what it is (Orlesian expansionism). Who do you think is going to man the Exalted march? What do you think Nevarra is going to think about Orlais conquering its neighbors? What do you think Andrastrian states would think after they've seen the Chantry not only strip a state of its legitimate govenrment (or reduce them to mere puppets), but exterminate an entire population? What is the average Andrastrian everywhere goign to think?  

You honestly think all of Thedas is that stupid to watch and go "oh well, **** happens" ? To such an unprecedented event?

[/quote]
If anyhting, it is Nevarra and the other Free March city states which will divide the territory of Kirkwall. Nevarra has been at war with the Free Marches before, and would probably like to get even more terriotry, and the City States of the Free Marches themselves, are frequently fighting eachother. Orlais is far away in this conflict, and wouldn't be able to hold any territory.
And if the Chantry had sold the idea of Tevinter Mk. II rising in Kirkwall the average Thedosian wouldn't care about the people of Kirkwall at all. Hell, some people in Kirkwall itself may not even care then.
And yes. The average Thedosian is that ignorant. They are mainly farmers, or other workers, jsut living day by day, until some Lord Randomguy comes along and tell him to fight in some war, in a place he has never heard of.

[Augustei]

I hear a rumor that the Arl of Amaranthine is heavily bias towards the Grey Wardens.... =P

[Rifneno]

TJPags wrote...
Fair enough, no harm no foul on my end.

I enjoy lively debate, as I think you know  , and generally try to remain civil.

There are, obviously, a number of factors that are included in the mage/templar disucssion.  Not all of them are relevant to every aspect of the discussion.  I get frustrated sometimes when people bring up topic B during a discussion of topic A if they're not related or relevant.  If there, say, 12 separate points to discuss (and I just pulled that number out of noplace), there's nothing wrong with sometimes discussing them separately, as I see it.  After all, I actually agree on some pro-mage aspects of the debate.  On the whole, I clearly end up pro-templar, but that's based on a weighing of the totality.  It doesn't mean I'm blind to winning arguments on your end.

Agreed.  Half the fun is dissecting a counterargument.  

XxDeonxX wrote...
The original chance for them to attempt to break way was in cumberland, and the majority were seemingly in favor of staying since we heard nothing more of it. So they must not have hated the circles so much. Not to mention the circles were originally the mages idea.. But something tells me Kirkwalls mages were the primary source of libertarians / resolutionists.. cause that was one really bad circle

You're missing a key part of the story.  Kirkwall showed the mages that the templars could be defeated.  At Cumberland they thought they'd all be slaughtered without hope if they tried to free themselves.

The Baconer wrote...
So? The Annulment means every mage in Kirkwall must be executed. A roving band of blood mages and their mind-controlled thrall mudering their way across the streets of Hightown would certainly make for a fine argument in favor of Annulment. The common people of Kirkwall aren't going to think of them as "A rogue group of maleficar who are by no means affiliated with the Circle" they're going to hear, "A rogue group of maleficar".

Oh sure, if genocide is all it takes to keep the knucklebleeders happy, let's get right on that!  Heaven forbid we don't start a mass murder because a group of peasants can't be bothered to pay attention to details like "they're the ones who did it."

That is, of course, assuming you have something beyond your own speculation to prove that a significant number of the population is that stupid.  Which you don't.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Of course some mages dislike the Circle. That is unavoidable. Some farmers also dislike thier farms. Should we tear down all farms all over the world because of that? Now I know you are going to argue that "But the farmer can always choose to be something else, or work on another farm", which isn't correct. He could, in theory try to, yes, but that won't be guarenteed. A mage can, most likely, ask for transfer to another Circle, and a mage can never stop being a mage, unless he gets tranquiled.

Templars going after the family of an apostate is not abuse. That is going after their target, the apostate. The Tempalrs are out to find an apostate, which tehy know have family in Kirkwall. Are they to completely ignore that? Or should they go pay the family a visit to see if they have had contact with their apostate child?
If they have harbored and assisted the apostate, it is illegal, and effectively harboring a criminal, which is why they get punished. Again, that is not abuse, that is simply how things work in Thedas.
I never claimed some Templars didn't abuse the mages. I claimed that people are blowing the issue way out of proportions.

Bad analogy is bad.  Disliking your job is so not the same thing as disliking imprisonment.

And questioning a family after an apostate may not be abuse, but siccing a death squad on someone for feeding her cousin is.  But then, you're the guy who referred to actual stated cases of rape and illegal Tranquiling and torture as "abuse."  Not player interpreations even, but concrete examples provided by the damn game.  Anyone who is willing to dismiss rape, especially, as "abuse" is just...well.  

You don't even bother to read the entire analogy, and just bold the first part and calls it bad. Great. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. Try read the whole thing, then come back.

And if rape isn't abuse, then what the hell is it? It is a form sexual abuse. So I fail to see why it makes me a monster to claim rape as abuse. But hell, I'm a monster, so I guess I shouldn't care.
And the tranquilizations of the mages is a form of power abuse from the Templars. So how the hell is that not abuse? But then again, I'm still a mosnter, so I shouldn't care. Right? Right.

[Merela]

Plaintiff wrote...

You might as well ask "But did a majority of French peasants want to overthrow the monarchy?" Of course they did, or else they never would've got that far. A revolution constitutes a major shift in dichotomy. Sure, a small group can overthrow a leader, but they won't last long without majority support.

I must disagree. Actually, French peasants never wanted to overthrow the monarchy. How to explain...all the third state wanted was to abolish the nobility's privileges and, most important, they wanted wheaths and bread. Nobody ever imagined that it would end with the overthrow of the monarchic  regim and the death of Louis XVI. People mostly loved the King, who was considered as the "Father of the French People". They never wanted a violent Revolution. They never wanted to overthrow monarchy. At worst, they wanted a constitutional monarchy, like in England.

Louis' fate was influenced by his attempt to escape in 1791, but even in 1793, only 361 votes on 721 decided his death. Hardly a crushy "victory". No mention the man who asked for his death turned himself into a blood-thirsty tyrant, who was responsible for far more deaths than the Revolution itself, not only through his opponents but through his supporters as well. A Revolution who led to the creation of an Empire which conquered a large part of Europe in blood waves.

...so, please, don't use the French Revolution as an example for your argument about mage freedom, because it's not a good one. At all. And it's a French who is telling it.

Modifié par Merela, 08 mai 2011 - 06:05 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Unless you want to argue that the Crown should use its own mages to force the nobility under heel, and form even more ruthless dictatorships. [/quote]

Yes, the crown / states should use the mages to establish centralization of power and get rid of the feudal system. If you want to call that dictatorship, go ahead.

[quote]
The Chantry would rather destroy the knowledge of Templar trainning than let it be publicly known. And if a state is ever going to ignore the Chantry, they will effectively be ignoring the biggest shaker on the power scene. Which is incredibly stupid.[/quote]

Hawke can learn to be a Templar easily.
States shouldn't ignore the Chantry. They should weaken it. And they can, especially now.

[quote]
Or perhaps the Templars in Kirkwall have just been exceptionally effective.[/quote]

Excuse me, I was too busy killing insane mages and abomiantions on the loose in the city left and right for me to notice.

[quote]
It just proves that you don't know the threat Abominations pose. The codex clearly states, that Abominations are extremely dangerous and that they have caused the loss of entire cities, and are responsbile for some of the biggest disasters in the history of Thedas. Abominations are a constant threat, of varying level. To completely ignore it as "Meh, they can't possibly be that powerful" will just be your undoing.[/quote]

Cite the codex. Show me more importantly who wrote it. Then come back.

The codex you have in mind said villages. Not cities. 

[quote]
Because she called for an Exalted March against Kirkwall. Not genocide against Kirkwall. That genocide in Kirkwall was likely to happen, and that the Divine probably expected that, doesn't matter.[/quote]

And how do you know that by Exalted march, she also didn't mean genocide?

[quote]
Her main priority should be the security of Thedas. [/quote]

Her main priority apparently is keeping her monopoly on Lyrium and mages.

[quote]
The Templars were only disliked in Kirkwall. Not the rest of Thedas. [/quote]

So destroying Kirkwall for daring to dislike Templars is so going to make the others continue to love them.

[quote]
She finds the threat of a new Tevinter forming in Kirkwall to be incredibly present. It was the job of the Grand Cleric to alleviate the anger towards the Templars, she failed that. [/quote]

The threat of a new Tevinter forming is directly linked to the people being angry at the Templars and helping mages. If the Divine can't see that, then she is an idiot.

[quote]
It is to save lives. Can you tell me, right here and right now, with the data we got available. Which would have cost the mkost lives, an Exalted March on Kirkwall, or the mage war we face now? You can't, neither can the Divine, but nevertheless these are the things she needs to take into consideration when contemplating the big decisions.[/quote]

A false dichotomy based on the assumption that a war on Kirkwall was not going to start the revolution anyways. Or make it worse by angering every Andrastrian out there.

So again, it would have been an idiot's move.

[quote]
 Orlais is far away in this conflict, and wouldn't be able to hold any territory.[/quote]

Puppet regime, they already did it before.

As for Nevarra going in. They won't if Orlais is involved, which it surely will. This might even end up causing war between the two states while they are at it. 

[quote]
And if the Chantry had sold the idea of Tevinter Mk. II rising in Kirkwall the average Thedosian wouldn't care about the people of Kirkwall at all. Hell, some people in Kirkwall itself may not even care then.
[/quote]

You're overestimating their stupidity. And underestimating what the higher classes can do when they are rightfully angered about this. You yet do not seem to realize that the people of Kirkwall are Andrastrians, under the Orlesian Chantry. An Exalted March declared on Andrastrians never happened.

Instead of all this nonsense, the Divine could have removed the incompetent Meredith. Put in place a strict but moderate KC. Allow Kirkwall to reform its government, with an explicit pact banning the state from ever trying to kick the templars out like they did before. Work on PRs to alleviate popular anger and regain their trust and admiration. Work to regain the trust of mdedrate mages and show them that the Resolutionists are also their enemy.

But no. Destroying everything seems to be the only thing the Chantry is capable of.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 mai 2011 - 06:10 .

[Silfren]

TJPags wrote...


Oh, we don't know that at all, do we?  Do we really know that Templars all across Thedas in every other Circle didn't begin some kind of purge?  Some variation of the methods Meredith used?  Do we know that mages were not treated worse after Anders actions, thus forcing them to take action they otherwise did not want?

The only thing I have to say on this particular issue is this:  Varric seems to indicate, either pro-mage or pro-templar ending, that the Circles rose up of their own accord.  There's certainly room for interpretation, but that's the feel I got from his words, especially the pro-mage ending.  (Haven't played through pro-templar, but I've seen youtube videos).

However, my stance is this.  If the Circles did indeed rise up of their own accord because they looked at Kirkwall and were inspired to emancipate themselves, that strongly suggests that they had majority support within their ranks.  Sure, it's possible that you might've seen a few Uldred-esque rebellions, but I think those would likely have done more to decimate the mages' own ranks due to the chaotic infighting, as per what we saw of that situation in Ferelden.  If it was only a few mages in each Circle who wanted to rebel, I seriously doubt they'd have been successful.  More likely that mages who had been approached for support would have reported the rogue mages out of self-preservation if they were that dead against rising up.  Or the First Enchanter might have even thought it best to have those mages "culled" for the good of the Circle--see Irving.  So I think it's pretty reasonable to conclude that far more mages wanted rebellion than not.  I realize that it still does not address the question of "what about those that didn't?"  but there you go.  

On the other hand, if the Templars of the other Circles looked at Kirkwall and actually thought that it meant they should crackdown even harder on their own mages, or Gods forfend even conduct Annulments of their own?  I...well, I think the blame for that should be pinned on those Templars, not Anders.  If they were actually that willing to condemn their own Circles to execution, down to the last man, woman, and child, based on what happened at a Circle in a different nation, then as far as I'm concerned, that simply justifies Anders' whole position.

[TJPags]

Rifneno wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...
The original chance for them to attempt to break way was in cumberland, and the majority were seemingly in favor of staying since we heard nothing more of it. So they must not have hated the circles so much. Not to mention the circles were originally the mages idea.. But something tells me Kirkwalls mages were the primary source of libertarians / resolutionists.. cause that was one really bad circle

You're missing a key part of the story.  Kirkwall showed the mages that the templars could be defeated.  At Cumberland they thought they'd all be slaughtered without hope if they tried to free themselves.

True, but that statement makes less sense if you side with the Templars.  Virtually every mage in the Circle is killed (let's not argue the fate of the few who can be taken prisoner for a moment).  I'm not sure how that shows that templars could be defeated.

But that's a game problem, really, not yours.  The game does say it.  It just . .. makes no sense to me in that context. 

[IanPolaris]

XxDeonxX wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The mages loved the circles and chantry SO MUCH that when a real opportunity and incentive to break away presented themselves, not one decided to stay.

That by itself says volumes.

-Polaris

The original chance for them to attempt to break way was in cumberland, and the majority were seemingly in favor of staying since we heard nothing more of it. So they must not have hated the circles so much. Not to mention the circles were originally the mages idea.. But something tells me Kirkwalls mages were the primary source of libertarians / resolutionists.. cause that was one really bad circle

Maybe circumstances changed?  Perhaps a little something like a completely unjustified RoA committed by a fruitloop of a Knight Commander that the Chantry refused to put down FOR YEARS might have had just a wee bit to do with that change of heart?

The only reason the Circles didn't rebel 7 years earlier (they all wanted to) was because Wynne and others sucessfully argued at Cumberland that the Chantry would rather kill them all than let them be free.  Now they know the Chantry is willing to kill them all anyway at the sligtest excuse....so they have nothing to lose.

-Polaris

[Silfren]

klarabella wrote...
It is only used because Gaider has stated again and again that mages are dangerous and feared with good reason. I thought he of all people would know what he's talking about.

KnightofPhoenix

And no one is saying that they aren't dangerous and shouldnt' be feared (and I think the writers went in overkill mode in DA2 to try and prove that, hence the amount of ridiculous we had).

This is something I've yet to really understand.  I realize that Gaider himself said that they deliberately tried to skew the story so that mages would be far less sympathetic in DA2 than in Origins, and I've certainly seen a great many players talk about how they find it very difficult to side with the mages, seeing that they seem to be proving the Chantry right and justifying their enslavement.

Me, I just can't get that.  With the exception of a small handful, most of the mages I see turning to blood magic and making pacts with demons, is done out of desperation.  I'd understand all the above if mages were turning to blood magic and demons left and right purely to gain power to dominate others, but seriously, that seems to be not only a minority, but a tiny one.  Most mages in Kirkwall seem to be doing it because they feel desperate.  And sorry, but I'm so totally not down with the whole "well, they always had a choice, they still could have chosen not to resort to x!" because there's choices, and then there's free choices.  I'm not going to play the "you always had a choice" bull**** when a person's choice comes down to survival or death, or even "just" survival or imprisonment.

Modifié par Silfren, 08 mai 2011 - 06:19 .

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Of course some mages dislike the Circle. That is unavoidable. Some farmers also dislike thier farms. Should we tear down all farms all over the world because of that? Now I know you are going to argue that "But the farmer can always choose to be something else, or work on another farm", which isn't correct. He could, in theory try to, yes, but that won't be guarenteed. A mage can, most likely, ask for transfer to another Circle, and a mage can never stop being a mage, unless he gets tranquiled.

Templars going after the family of an apostate is not abuse. That is going after their target, the apostate. The Tempalrs are out to find an apostate, which tehy know have family in Kirkwall. Are they to completely ignore that? Or should they go pay the family a visit to see if they have had contact with their apostate child?
If they have harbored and assisted the apostate, it is illegal, and effectively harboring a criminal, which is why they get punished. Again, that is not abuse, that is simply how things work in Thedas.
I never claimed some Templars didn't abuse the mages. I claimed that people are blowing the issue way out of proportions.

Bad analogy is bad.  Disliking your job is so not the same thing as disliking imprisonment.

And questioning a family after an apostate may not be abuse, but siccing a death squad on someone for feeding her cousin is.  But then, you're the guy who referred to actual stated cases of rape and illegal Tranquiling and torture as "abuse."  Not player interpreations even, but concrete examples provided by the damn game.  Anyone who is willing to dismiss rape, especially, as "abuse" is just...well.  

You don't even bother to read the entire analogy, and just bold the first part and calls it bad. Great. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. Try read the whole thing, then come back.

And if rape isn't abuse, then what the hell is it? It is a form sexual abuse. So I fail to see why it makes me a monster to claim rape as abuse. But hell, I'm a monster, so I guess I shouldn't care.
And the tranquilizations of the mages is a form of power abuse from the Templars. So how the hell is that not abuse? But then again, I'm still a mosnter, so I shouldn't care. Right? Right.

It may be illegal to give shelter to an apostate by Thedosian Chantry law, but does that mean were I to do so I should be killed on the spot? If an apostate came to my house, bleeding dead away, and I had no clue who he was or that he was a mage so I take him in and mend his wounds until he got better and left, should that mean that I get killed by some bat**** insane woman's death squad cronies? No*. Murder for sheltering someone doesn't mean anything in a world where you don't know who an apostate is. I doubt they'd publicly shout it from the streets.

What it should mean is that some Templars stand guard in the vicinity of that house incase said apostate returns.

*I know that woman was feeding her cousin. I'm trying to make a point.

[EmperorSahlertz]

How on earth is kings using amges as their own personal death squads going to help mages? If aynthing it is going to make it far worse. Or at least their reputation.

And let me see if I have gotten it straight KoP, your issue is with the monopoly the Chantry got? Or is it with their treatment of mages?
And also explain to me why the Chantry should be weakened. Because it is a religious institution? Because it has the most power? Why?
Basically you have major issues with the Chantry, yet you want every state in Thedas to turn into the Chantry. I can't find head or tail in your reasons.

[TEWR]

Knight of Phoenix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Because she called for an Exalted March against Kirkwall. Not genocide against Kirkwall. That genocide in Kirkwall was likely to happen, and that the Divine probably expected that, doesn't matter.

And how do you know that by Exalted march, she also didn't mean genocide?

She did mean genocide Sahlertz

Sebastian's Faith quest addressed this much.

and you really think innocents haven't been killed in an Exalted March? Um... the Fall of the Dales is a good example of innocent people dying, no matter who started that war.

Innocents always die in war, and that's what an Exalted March is. It's a holy war. A crusade.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 08 mai 2011 - 06:24 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Of course some mages dislike the Circle. That is unavoidable. Some farmers also dislike thier farms. Should we tear down all farms all over the world because of that? Now I know you are going to argue that "But the farmer can always choose to be something else, or work on another farm", which isn't correct. He could, in theory try to, yes, but that won't be guarenteed. A mage can, most likely, ask for transfer to another Circle, and a mage can never stop being a mage, unless he gets tranquiled.

Templars going after the family of an apostate is not abuse. That is going after their target, the apostate. The Tempalrs are out to find an apostate, which tehy know have family in Kirkwall. Are they to completely ignore that? Or should they go pay the family a visit to see if they have had contact with their apostate child?
If they have harbored and assisted the apostate, it is illegal, and effectively harboring a criminal, which is why they get punished. Again, that is not abuse, that is simply how things work in Thedas.
I never claimed some Templars didn't abuse the mages. I claimed that people are blowing the issue way out of proportions.

Bad analogy is bad.  Disliking your job is so not the same thing as disliking imprisonment.

And questioning a family after an apostate may not be abuse, but siccing a death squad on someone for feeding her cousin is.  But then, you're the guy who referred to actual stated cases of rape and illegal Tranquiling and torture as "abuse."  Not player interpreations even, but concrete examples provided by the damn game.  Anyone who is willing to dismiss rape, especially, as "abuse" is just...well.  

You don't even bother to read the entire analogy, and just bold the first part and calls it bad. Great. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. Try read the whole thing, then come back.

And if rape isn't abuse, then what the hell is it? It is a form sexual abuse. So I fail to see why it makes me a monster to claim rape as abuse. But hell, I'm a monster, so I guess I shouldn't care.
And the tranquilizations of the mages is a form of power abuse from the Templars. So how the hell is that not abuse? But then again, I'm still a mosnter, so I shouldn't care. Right? Right.

It may be illegal to give shelter to an apostate by Thedosian Chantry law, but does that mean were I to do so I should be killed on the spot? If an apostate came to my house, bleeding dead away, and I had no clue who he was or that he was a mage so I take him in and mend his wounds until he got better and left, should that mean that I get killed by some bat**** insane woman's death squad cronies? No*. Murder for sheltering someone doesn't mean anything in a world where you don't know who an apostate is. I doubt they'd publicly shout it from the streets.

What it should mean is that some Templars stand guard in the vicinity of that house incase said apostate returns.

*I know that woman was feeding her cousin. I'm trying to make a point.

The person in question knew it was an apostate she was assisting, she even admitted that. If you had no clue the person at your door was a mage, the Templars probably wouldn't kill you, but rather ask in which direction he went.

[TEWR]

Point. Missing it. Ah well.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Knight of Phoenix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Because she called for an Exalted March against Kirkwall. Not genocide against Kirkwall. That genocide in Kirkwall was likely to happen, and that the Divine probably expected that, doesn't matter.

And how do you know that by Exalted march, she also didn't mean genocide?

She did mean genocide Sahlertz

Sebastian's Faith quest addressed this much.

I'm not saying she didn't hope for it. I'm saying taht in a world of politics, not using the exact word of what you are doing, can be incredibly important. She knew fully that an Exalted March on Kirkwall, would result in the wholesale slaughter of Kirkwall's population. However, not directly having called for "genocide against all Kirkwallers", allows her to claim innocence of attrocities commited. It's politics at its worst.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The person in question knew it was an apostate she was assisting, she even admitted that. If you had no clue the person at your door was a mage, the Templars probably wouldn't kill you, but rather ask in which direction he went.

Sure.  Were you involved in the Iraqi occupation?  If so, legality completely aside, you have to know that assigning DEATH SQUADS to kill anyone that would give even a known terrorist a meal or other minor aid, is simply STUPID.  In fact, it's far, far better to show leniency, understanding, and mercy whenever you can (while noting who is helping whom).  Ideally you want to turn such people into informants.  At the very least you do NOT want to inspire hate.

-Polaris