4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Silfren wrote...

If you want to dismiss it as nothing more than game mechanics, that's up to you.  I don't.  And even so, I still would find it very difficult to believe that the Grand Cleric could have utterly no clue about the things going on around her for the seven years we see. Either way, if she disapproves, why the hell doesn't she step in to do something?  Oh, wait, because getting the Knight Commander to be less oppressive equates to taking sides and that would be bad for Kirkwall.  Oh, and it's the Maker's job, too, rather than hers.

You know what would be great?  If on the Faith quest where she pleads with Hawke to go handle the seeker, sarcastic Hawke could tell her "but I cannot take sides!" and "if it is the Maker's will..." and all that crap she uses.

Yup.  It'd be doubly worth it for the look of horror I'd get from Sebastian.

The quote that keeps floating around in my head is "The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."  Neutrality is not a laudable trait in the face of abuse.  You don't have to be actively involved in the abuse--if you're permitting it to go on through a steadfast refusal to do anything, you're just as guilty.

As a neutral person I find that ridculous. 

Elthina is guilty because it was her job to make sure that abuse wasn't happening. 

To blame someone else though for another's actions? That's idiocy. 

I'm not blaming her for Meredith's actions as if she was forcing Meredith and the other templars to be abusive.  I'm blaming her for not putting a stop to them.  Knowing that abuse is happening, and refusing to take action against it, is tantamount to sending a message that you're okay with the abuse.  It makes you equally culpable.  I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Silfren wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Redcliffe: An example of a child whose mother was so determined not to lose him to the Circle that she sought other means.  Would not have happened if she didn't have to worry about losing her son forever, or him not losing his title as heir to Redcliffe.  This is an argument in favor of having a system for training mages that does not involve tearing them away from their family.  

What?  You have here EXACTLY what you want.  A child, with his family, in a loving environment, with Mage training.  It 100% does not support what you suggest as the child, through no malice on his part still turned into a demon, with not involvment of the chantry or templars.  Mindboggling that out of all the incidents of mages gone wrong people still try and blame this one on the circle or the chantry.

Oh, for the love of Christ.  No, I don't.  What you have is a child who was half-ass trained in secret by a mage not fit to train him BECAUSE HIS MOTHER DIDN'T WANT THE BLOODY CIRCLE TO TAKE HIM AWAY FOREVER.  Were the Circles a place where he could have been sent to study without being permanently removed from his family, Isolde would not have felt the need to go to the drastic measures she did.  Likewise if she could have had access to properly trained mages who had been free to tutor the boy within his own home.  Cease and desist with trying to claim that what happened with Connor in Redcliffe was an example of what would happen under an ideal situation.  It was nothing of the sort.

I'm done wasting my time arguing with people who insist on this level of intellectual dishonesty.

In other words: You are holding the Circle directly responsible, for something it is only indirectly invovled in. That is unreasonable.
It isn't what would happen in the ideal situation. It is what could happen, despite of the ideal situation.

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...
I'm not blaming her for Meredith's actions as if she was forcing Meredith and the other templars to be abusive.  I'm blaming her for not putting a stop to them.  Knowing that abuse is happening, and refusing to take action against it, is tantamount to sending a message that you're okay with the abuse.  It makes you equally culpable.  I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this.

Uh...no it doesn't make you equally culpable. It means you didn't get involved that is all. 

Following the "you didn't stop it." logic everyone who doesn't throw themselves infront of tanks to stop wars are to blame for the wars. 

And Elthina should only be blamed for not putting a stop to it because it was her job to make sure such things weren't occurring. Not because she didn't stop them. 

Using that logic Hawke him/herself is okay with the abuse because he/she never does anything to stop it. Using that logic you can blame nearly everyone in Hawke's party for the situation in Kirkwall. They all knew what was happening (Anders certainly ranted about it enough) and did nothing to stop it. 

If you play the blame game long enough a finger will eventually get pointed at you. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 mai 2011 - 10:17 .

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Silfren wrote...
I'm not blaming her for Meredith's actions as if she was forcing Meredith and the other templars to be abusive.  I'm blaming her for not putting a stop to them.  Knowing that abuse is happening, and refusing to take action against it, is tantamount to sending a message that you're okay with the abuse.  It makes you equally culpable.  I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this.

Uh...no it doesn't make you equally culpable. It means you didn't get involved that is all. 

Following the "you didn't stop it." logic everyone who doesn't throw themselves infront of tanks to stop wars are to blame for the wars. 

And Elthina should only be blamed for not putting a stop to it because it was her job to make sure such things weren't occurring. Not because she didn't stop them. 

Using that logic Hawke him/herself is okay with the abuse because he/she never does anything to stop it. Using that logic you can blame nearly everyone in Hawke's party for the situation in Kirkwall. They all knew what was happening (Anders certainly ranted about it enough) and did nothing to stop it. 

If you play the blame game long enough a finger will eventually get pointed at you. 

That is precisely why I blame Elthina.  Because it was her JOB to put a stop to it and she refused.  I've been pretty damned clear on that point in quite a few posts.

Modifié par Silfren, 10 mai 2011 - 10:20 .

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...
That is precisely why I blame Elthina.  Because it was her JOB to put a stop to it and she refused.  I've been pretty damned clear on that point in quite a few posts.

Except that's not what the post I was responding to said. 

You said anyone who didn't stop the abuse was culpable. That is not remotely the same thing. 

[Sylvianus]

Ryzaki wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Silfren wrote...

If you want to dismiss it as nothing more than game mechanics, that's up to you.  I don't.  And even so, I still would find it very difficult to believe that the Grand Cleric could have utterly no clue about the things going on around her for the seven years we see. Either way, if she disapproves, why the hell doesn't she step in to do something?  Oh, wait, because getting the Knight Commander to be less oppressive equates to taking sides and that would be bad for Kirkwall.  Oh, and it's the Maker's job, too, rather than hers.

You know what would be great?  If on the Faith quest where she pleads with Hawke to go handle the seeker, sarcastic Hawke could tell her "but I cannot take sides!" and "if it is the Maker's will..." and all that crap she uses.

Yup.  It'd be doubly worth it for the look of horror I'd get from Sebastian.

The quote that keeps floating around in my head is "The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."  Neutrality is not a laudable trait in the face of abuse.  You don't have to be actively involved in the abuse--if you're permitting it to go on through a steadfast refusal to do anything, you're just as guilty.

As a neutral person I find that ridculous. 

Elthina is guilty because it was her job to make sure that abuse wasn't happening. 

To blame someone else though for another's actions? That's idiocy. 

I'm a neutral person too. It's weird that we agree. ))

Modifié par Sylvianus, 10 mai 2011 - 10:22 .

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

In other words: You are holding the Circle directly responsible, for something it is only indirectly invovled in. That is unreasonable.
It isn't what would happen in the ideal situation. It is what could happen, despite of the ideal situation.

Redcliffe wasn't an ideal situation, and the Chantry is responsible for the social conditions of Andrastian nations where magic is looked on as a curse and mages are seen with disdain because that's what they preach to the people who follow their religion and think the organization speaks in the Maker's name, which is why the pious Arlessa Isolde behaved as she did.

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Redcliffe: An example of a child whose mother was so determined not to lose him to the Circle that she sought other means.  Would not have happened if she didn't have to worry about losing her son forever, or him not losing his title as heir to Redcliffe.  This is an argument in favor of having a system for training mages that does not involve tearing them away from their family.  

What?  You have here EXACTLY what you want.  A child, with his family, in a loving environment, with Mage training.  It 100% does not support what you suggest as the child, through no malice on his part still turned into a demon, with not involvment of the chantry or templars.  Mindboggling that out of all the incidents of mages gone wrong people still try and blame this one on the circle or the chantry.

Oh, for the love of Christ.  No, I don't.  What you have is a child who was half-ass trained in secret by a mage not fit to train him BECAUSE HIS MOTHER DIDN'T WANT THE BLOODY CIRCLE TO TAKE HIM AWAY FOREVER.  Were the Circles a place where he could have been sent to study without being permanently removed from his family, Isolde would not have felt the need to go to the drastic measures she did.  Likewise if she could have had access to properly trained mages who had been free to tutor the boy within his own home.  Cease and desist with trying to claim that what happened with Connor in Redcliffe was an example of what would happen under an ideal situation.  It was nothing of the sort.

I'm done wasting my time arguing with people who insist on this level of intellectual dishonesty.

In other words: You are holding the Circle directly responsible, for something it is only indirectly invovled in. That is unreasonable.
It isn't what would happen in the ideal situation. It is what could happen, despite of the ideal situation.

Last time. 

NO, not in other words.  I am saying that the ENVIRONMENT of Thedas, WHEREIN the Chantry requires that children be taken away from their parents and imprisoned in Circles, and the practice of stripping them of their right to be with ther family ever again, as well as any noble titles they may have, CREATED THE SITUATION in which a woman did not want anyone to discover her child had magic, and so she tried to find a way to have him taught in secret.  Had this not been the case, had the Circles been a place where Connor could have gone to study without being imprisoned for his life, and without forfeiting his rights to his family name, or a place where Isolde could have requested the Circle for a competent mage to come and tutor her son, it very likely would not have happened. 

What happened to Connor in Redcliffe is in NO WAY an illustration of what would happen if mages were trained at home, with no Circle.  It IS an example of the existing system leading people to go to drastic measures to keep their children out of the Circles at all costs even though they don't have a sound alternative. 

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Silfren wrote...
That is precisely why I blame Elthina.  Because it was her JOB to put a stop to it and she refused.  I've been pretty damned clear on that point in quite a few posts.

Except that's not what the post I was responding to said. 

You said anyone who didn't stop the abuse was culpable. That is not remotely the same thing. 

Only if you want to take me literally and infer absolutist statements simply because I don't write down disclaimers and exceptions in excruciatingly minute detail.  I was talking about Elthina, and thought that people with reading comprehension abilities could figure that out without my having to provide explicit disclaimers in minute detail.  Since, after all, Elthina's inaction was the specific subject of all those posts. 

My statement that you quoted was this: "I'm not blaming her for Meredith's actions as if she was forcing Meredith and the other templars to be abusive.  I'm blaming her for not putting a stop to them.  Knowing that abuse is happening, and refusing to take action against it, is tantamount to sending a message that you're okay with the abuse.  It makes you equally culpable.  I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this."  Elthina was the subject of that whole bit, so I thought it was obvious I was referring to her and her position of authority.  While it could be taken as a general statement, when taken in its actual context, my first impression is that you took my statement about neutrality personally and are projecting.

Modifié par Silfren, 10 mai 2011 - 10:38 .

[Sylvianus]

Anyway there wasn't only Eltina in chantry , there was a mass of people inside. But so desperate is warranted. Thank you for this philosophy.

I was beaten by my father, I'm desperate, I will kill lots of people in the street with a gun. My mother has done nothing for me, She never try to stop my father, i killed her. blah blah blah

But I understand it is justified. It's the fault of my father, he made ​​me an animal, no it's not murder.

Meredith it is a form of terrorism with the roa. And Anders no, it's really interesting.

Anders is a freedom fighter of course. Very interesting.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 10 mai 2011 - 10:34 .

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...
Only if you want to take me literally and infer absolutist statements simply because I don't write down disclaimers and exceptions in excruciatingly minute detail.  I was talking about Elthina, and thought that people with reading comprehension abilities could figure that out without my having to provide explicit disclaimers in minute detail.  Since, after all, Elthina's inaction was the specific subject of all those posts.  

You made an absolutist statement. 

Silfren wrote...
I'm not blaming her for Meredith's actions as if she was forcing Meredith and the other templars to be abusive. I'm blaming her for not putting a stop to them.  Knowing that abuse is happening, and refusing to take action against it, is tantamount to sending a message that you're okay with the abuse. It makes you equally culpable. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this.

You said "you" not "Elthina" and that statement isn't clear in the least. If you don't want your point misconstructed make it clearer. 

And the little "reading comprehension." jab makes you look childish. Grow up. 

[Silfren]

Sylvianus wrote...

Anyway there wasn't only Eltina in chantry , there was a mass of people inside. But so desperate is warranted. Thank you for this philosophy.

I was beaten by my father, I'm desperate, I will kill lots of people in the street with a gun. My mother has done nothing for me, She never try to stop my father, i killed her. blah blah blah

But I understand it is justified. It's the fault of my father, he made ​​me an animal, no it's not murder.

Meredith it is a form of terrorism with the roa. And Anders no, it's really interesting.

Anders is a freedom fighter of course. Very interesting.

Bad analogy is bad.  Anders didn't blow up the Chantry because his father beat him.

People keep saying there was a ton of people inside the Chantry, but the only people I EVER see in there during that scene is Elthina and something like three or four templars.  

[LobselVith8]

Sylvianus wrote...

Anyway there wasn't only Eltina in chantry , there was a mass of people inside. But so desperate is warranted. Thank you for this philosophy.

I was beaten by my father, I'm desperate, I will kill lots of people in the street with a gun. My mother has done nothing for me, She never try to stop my father, i killed her. blah blah blah

But I understand it is justified. It's the fault of my father, he made ​​me an animal, no it's not murder.

Wouldn't this be an argument for imprisoning or executing Anders based on his actions? Meredith basically ignores Anders' presence, then invokes the Right of Annulment against the entire Circle of Kirkwall for an act Anders alone was responsible for.

Sylvianus wrote...

Meredith it is a form of terrorism with the roa. And Anders no, it's really interesting.

Anders is a freedom fighter of course. Very interesting.

I think that the Chantry and the templars would see Anders as a villain, and I can imagine some mages would view him as a hero.

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Only if you want to take me literally and infer absolutist statements simply because I don't write down disclaimers and exceptions in excruciatingly minute detail.  I was talking about Elthina, and thought that people with reading comprehension abilities could figure that out without my having to provide explicit disclaimers in minute detail.  Since, after all, Elthina's inaction was the specific subject of all those posts.  

You made an absolutist statement. 

Silfren wrote...
I'm not blaming her for Meredith's actions as if she was forcing Meredith and the other templars to be abusive. I'm blaming her for not putting a stop to them.  Knowing that abuse is happening, and refusing to take action against it, is tantamount to sending a message that you're okay with the abuse. It makes you equally culpable. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this.

You said "you" not "Elthina" and that statement isn't clear in the least. If you don't want your point misconstructed make it clearer. 

And the little "reading comprehension." jab makes you look childish. Grow up. 

I didn't make an absolutist statement, given that the quote you refer to was addressing Elthina.  I added to that post for clarity's sake, just FYI.  And sorry, not apologizing for the reading comprehension bit.  I've had it to death with people twisting my words, putting words in my mouth, and making disingenuous arguments based on things I haven't said, and now I'm adding the need to ignore context and be pedantic to the list.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Trainning mage children at home would be different than waht happened in Redcliffe how? Because that was exactly what happened. Ideally it would have been a licensed mage, who would be certified to train the mage child. However, even with the best teachers, sometimes students fails, and then, you got yourself a nice little Redcliffe incidence Mk.II despite the ideal situation.

[Silfren]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Anyway there wasn't only Eltina in chantry , there was a mass of people inside. But so desperate is warranted. Thank you for this philosophy.

I was beaten by my father, I'm desperate, I will kill lots of people in the street with a gun. My mother has done nothing for me, She never try to stop my father, i killed her. blah blah blah

But I understand it is justified. It's the fault of my father, he made ​​me an animal, no it's not murder.

Wouldn't this be an argument for imprisoning or executing Anders based on his actions? Meredith basically ignores Anders' presence, then invokes the Right of Annulment against the entire Circle of Kirkwall for an act Anders alone was responsible for.

Sylvianus wrote...

Meredith it is a form of terrorism with the roa. And Anders no, it's really interesting.

Anders is a freedom fighter of course. Very interesting.

I think that the Chantry and the templars would see Anders as a villain, and I can imagine some mages would view him as a hero.

Not to mention any family that ever lost a loved one to the Chantry's militant stance on mages.

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...
I didn't make an absolutist statement, given that the quote you refer to was addressing Elthina.  I added to that post for clarity's sake, just FYI.  And sorry, not apologizing for the reading comprehension bit.  I've had it to death with people twisting my words, putting words in my mouth, and making disingenuous arguments based on things I haven't said, and now I'm adding the need to ignore context and be pedantic to the list.

So the usage of you wasn't a general you? So why use you instead of her? 

If you don't want people twisting your words make yourself clearer. I put nothing in your mouth I quoted exactly what you typed out and responded to it. You said "you" I assumed it was the general "you" and not the directly towards me "you." If you yourself had "basic reading comprehension." you would be aware of that. 

Now if you didn't mean that just say so. But the fact remains that is what you said. Trying to go "oh that's not wat I said!" is ridculous considering I quoted you at least 3 times. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 mai 2011 - 10:47 .

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Silfren wrote...
I didn't make an absolutist statement, given that the quote you refer to was addressing Elthina.  I added to that post for clarity's sake, just FYI.  And sorry, not apologizing for the reading comprehension bit.  I've had it to death with people twisting my words, putting words in my mouth, and making disingenuous arguments based on things I haven't said, and now I'm adding the need to ignore context and be pedantic to the list.

So the usage of you wasn't a general you? So why use you instead of her? 

If you don't want people twisting your words make yourself clearer. I put nothing in your mouth I quoted exactly what you typed out and responded to it. You said "you" I assumed it was the general "you" and not the directly towards me "you." If you yourself had "basic reading comprehension." you would be aware of that. 

Now if you didn't mean that just say so. But the fact remains that is what you said. Trying to go "oh that's not wat I said!" is ridculous considering I quoted you at least 3 times. 

So you want me to believe you couldn't figure out that since I made that "you" statement in the same paragraph as talking about Elthina, that I was referring to her and her position?  Yes, I could probably have been clearer, but the "general you" sense was intended to refer to "general you who are in that kind of position of authority" and I really thought that most people could figure that out just from the context.

[Sylvianus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Anyway there wasn't only Eltina in chantry , there was a mass of people inside. But so desperate is warranted. Thank you for this philosophy.

I was beaten by my father, I'm desperate, I will kill lots of people in the street with a gun. My mother has done nothing for me, She never try to stop my father, i killed her. blah blah blah

But I understand it is justified. It's the fault of my father, he made ​​me an animal, no it's not murder.

Wouldn't this be an argument for imprisoning or executing Anders based on his actions? Meredith basically ignores Anders' presence, then invokes the Right of Annulment against the entire Circle of Kirkwall for an act Anders alone was responsible for.

Sylvianus wrote...

Meredith it is a form of terrorism with the roa. And Anders no, it's really interesting.

Anders is a freedom fighter of course. Very interesting.

I think that the Chantry and the templars would see Anders as a villain, and I can imagine some mages would view him as a hero.

No, but I agree with you Lobsell. That's why I say you're the one consistent in your indictment and what you say. Absolutism who some show  work against their argument. They seem much less credible to judge the Templars. No excuse me, not at all credible.

I'm neutral, but I am more in favor of the Magi in Thedas. If the decision is I'm with the templar in the end it's more because I thought Kirkwall was cursed. If it was simply because the act of Anders, I would never have taken the decision to help Meredith.

I think that the Chantry and the templars would see Anders as a villain, and I can imagine some mages would view him as a hero.

Chantry and Kirkwall' people would see Anders as a villain. Eltina was loved, and there are people inside the chantry. I think also that in many believers countries, some people car be angry. But yeah mages could see him as a hero by mages.

But say that meredith is a form of terrorism as stated Siliren and not  Anders, it is beyond the understanding and measurement. What's her definition of terrorism ?

It is blinded, it is close, disturbing. I see nothing else. Anders himself said he does not differ so much from terrorism. The word terrorist has been pronounced in his mouth.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 10 mai 2011 - 10:54 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Redcliffe: An example of a child whose mother was so determined not to lose him to the Circle that she sought other means.  Would not have happened if she didn't have to worry about losing her son forever, or him not losing his title as heir to Redcliffe.  This is an argument in favor of having a system for training mages that does not involve tearing them away from their family.  

What?  You have here EXACTLY what you want.  A child, with his family, in a loving environment, with Mage training.  It 100% does not support what you suggest as the child, through no malice on his part still turned into a demon, with not involvment of the chantry or templars.  Mindboggling that out of all the incidents of mages gone wrong people still try and blame this one on the circle or the chantry.

Oh, for the love of Christ.  No, I don't.  What you have is a child who was half-ass trained in secret by a mage not fit to train him BECAUSE HIS MOTHER DIDN'T WANT THE BLOODY CIRCLE TO TAKE HIM AWAY FOREVER.  Were the Circles a place where he could have been sent to study without being permanently removed from his family, Isolde would not have felt the need to go to the drastic measures she did.  Likewise if she could have had access to properly trained mages who had been free to tutor the boy within his own home.  Cease and desist with trying to claim that what happened with Connor in Redcliffe was an example of what would happen under an ideal situation.  It was nothing of the sort.

I'm done wasting my time arguing with people who insist on this level of intellectual dishonesty.

In other words: You are holding the Circle directly responsible, for something it is only indirectly invovled in. That is unreasonable.
It isn't what would happen in the ideal situation. It is what could happen, despite of the ideal situation.

Last time. 

NO, not in other words.  I am saying that the ENVIRONMENT of Thedas, WHEREIN the Chantry requires that children be taken away from their parents and imprisoned in Circles, and the practice of stripping them of their right to be with ther family ever again, as well as any noble titles they may have, CREATED THE SITUATION in which a woman did not want anyone to discover her child had magic, and so she tried to find a way to have him taught in secret.  Had this not been the case, had the Circles been a place where Connor could have gone to study without being imprisoned for his life, and without forfeiting his rights to his family name, or a place where Isolde could have requested the Circle for a competent mage to come and tutor her son, it very likely would not have happened. 

What happened to Connor in Redcliffe is in NO WAY an illustration of what would happen if mages were trained at home, with no Circle.  It IS an example of the existing system leading people to go to drastic measures to keep their children out of the Circles at all costs even though they don't have a sound alternative. 

So you blame the entire culture of Thedas? What the hell? That is even more unreasonable! If you point the finger that far back, you might aswell blame the Tevinter Imperium for the Redcliffe incidence. They are after all directly responsible for the generally negative view of magic. Clearly they are to blame then. See how unreasonable that is?
The blame lies with Isolde and Conner. No one else.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Trainning mage children at home would be different than waht happened in Redcliffe how? Because that was exactly what happened.

Jowan wasn't trained to instruct a child on the use of his abilities, and Connor didn't even know that the Desire Demon was a demon. He wasn't armed with knowledge against demons because he was ignorant of the real dangers that they posed.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Ideally it would have been a licensed mage, who would be certified to train the mage child. However, even with the best teachers, sometimes students fails, and then, you got yourself a nice little Redcliffe incidence Mk.II despite the ideal situation.

Yet we have at least a millennia of free mages in the kingdom of Rivain, centuries of free mages with the Avvar tribes and the Chasind Wilders, and over a millennia of mages with the Dalish - ranging from the kingdom of Arlathan to the nation of the Dales and even among the nomadic clans walking across Thedas. Wouldn't these societies have fallen if it was impossible to train mages without Chantry controlled Circles?

[Silfren]

[quote]Sylvianus wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Sylvianus wrote...

Anyway there wasn't only Eltina in chantry , there was a mass of people inside. But so desperate is warranted. Thank you for this philosophy.

I was beaten by my father, I'm desperate, I will kill lots of people in the street with a gun. My mother has done nothing for me, She never try to stop my father, i killed her. blah blah blah

But I understand it is justified. It's the fault of my father, he made ​​me an animal, no it's not murder. [/quote]

Wouldn't this be an argument for imprisoning or executing Anders based on his actions? Meredith basically ignores Anders' presence, then invokes the Right of Annulment against the entire Circle of Kirkwall for an act Anders alone was responsible for.

[quote]Sylvianus wrote...

Meredith it is a form of terrorism with the roa. And Anders no, it's really interesting.

Anders is a freedom fighter of course. Very interesting. [/quote]

I think that the Chantry and the templars would see Anders as a villain, and I can imagine some mages would view him as a hero.[/quote]

No, but I agree with you Lobsell. That's why I say you're the one consistent in your indictment and what you say. Absolutism who some show  work against their argument. They seem much less credible to judge the Templars. No excuse me, not at all credible.

I'm neutral, but I am more in favor of the Magi in Thedas. If the decision is I'm with the templar in the end it's more because I thought Kirkwall was cursed. If it was simply because the act of Anders, I would never have taken the decision to help Meredith.

[quote]I think that the Chantry and the templars would see Anders as a villain, and I can imagine some mages would view him as a hero.(/quote]

Chantry and Kirkwall' people would see Anders as a villain. Eltina was loved, and there are people inside the chantry. I think also that in many believers countries, some people car be angry. But yeah mages could see him as a hero by mages.

But say that meredith is a form of terrorism as stated Siliren and not  Anders, it is beyond the understanding and measurement. What's her definition of terrorism ?

 



It is blinded, it
is close. I
see nothing else. Anders himself said he does not differ so much from terrorism. The word terrorist has been pronounced in his mouth.


[/quote]

What Anders says depends on whether you romance him and whether you're at rivalry or friendship.  And I'm fairly sure that the literal word of terrorist never comes out of his mouth anywhere, even though yes, he does concede that what he did was horrible.

You want to know my opinion, try asking me, rather than LobselVith. 

I say that Anders action was horrific, but necessary.  I've tried to refrain from making a moral comparison between his action and Meredith's, but if I were to do so, I'd say that Anders was a good deal more sympathetic.  Whether his specific action was or wasn't terrorism is not so easy to pin down as people want to believe, because the lines are far too blurred for there to be a definitive answer.  I have said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and whether or not Anders' action was evil depends on your perspective.  I'm not exactly thrilled that innocent bystanders were likely caught in the crossfire, but I don't have one iota of sympathy for Elthina or any templars in the Chantry when it goes boom, and those are the only people I've ever been able to see in that scene.

[Sylvianus]

Silfren wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Anyway there wasn't only Eltina in chantry , there was a mass of people inside. But so desperate is warranted. Thank you for this philosophy.

I was beaten by my father, I'm desperate, I will kill lots of people in the street with a gun. My mother has done nothing for me, She never try to stop my father, i killed her. blah blah blah

But I understand it is justified. It's the fault of my father, he made ​​me an animal, no it's not murder.

Meredith it is a form of terrorism with the roa. And Anders no, it's really interesting.

Anders is a freedom fighter of course. Very interesting.

Bad analogy is bad.  Anders didn't blow up the Chantry because his father beat him.

People keep saying there was a ton of people inside the Chantry, but the only people I EVER see in there during that scene is Elthina and something like three or four templars.  

Is it the same person  who reproach us to say that in the game there is a lot of mages cursed when we have not seen the rest inside ? That there are  many children when actually we haven't seen many of them ?

Anders struck in the middle of the day. The Chantry is crowded at this time. There are believers, priests, priests, people within the chantry like the circle when we eleminate mages.

The few people you see in the Chantry it is because DA2 is sloppy. The whole town is empty, so there are few people in Kirkwall ?

No it's you bad analogy. Sorry bro.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 10 mai 2011 - 11:14 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Trainning mage children at home would be different than waht happened in Redcliffe how? Because that was exactly what happened.

Jowan wasn't trained to instruct a child on the use of his abilities, and Connor didn't even know that the Desire Demon was a demon. He wasn't armed with knowledge against demons because he was ignorant of the real dangers that they posed.

And Jowan had only trained Conner for a few weeks iirc. I doubt, the very first thing you teach a little child is the terrible dangers of the Fade.

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Ideally it would have been a licensed mage, who would be certified to train the mage child. However, even with the best teachers, sometimes students fails, and then, you got yourself a nice little Redcliffe incidence Mk.II despite the ideal situation.

Yet we have at least a millennia of free mages in the kingdom of Rivain, centuries of free mages with the Avvar tribes and the Chasind Wilders, and over a millennia of mages with the Dalish - ranging from the kingdom of Arlathan to the nation of the Dales and even among the nomadic clans walking across Thedas. Wouldn't these societies have fallen if it was impossible to train mages without Chantry controlled Circles?

They would have fallen no more, thana  nation would after experience hurricane season.

And again, you presume an aweful lot. How exactly do you know, and I want hard data, right now, how do you know those mages are free. And I mean truely free. Like in go wherever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want. Where is your data? What are you basing it on. The Dalish mages certainly aren't. They are bound to their clans, as the clans are to them. They are bound by their responsibility to their clans. And even then, they aren't free to choose where they will be apprenticed. Merrill didn't choose. She was taken from her parents at a young age, to serve as Marethari's first.
We got nothing on any of the other cultures you stated. You are simply using your own conjectures as proof of free mages.
We don't know squat about how they trained their mages in the Dales or Arlathan. Nor do we know how they do train them in Rivain or amongst the Chasind and Avvars.
So it is fairly easy to call you on baseless speculation.

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...
So you want me to believe you couldn't figure out that since I made that "you" statement in the same paragraph as talking about Elthina, that I was referring to her and her position?  Yes, I could probably have been clearer, but the "general you" sense was intended to refer to "general you who are in that kind of position of authority" and I really thought that most people could figure that out just from the context.

Uh...no. You changed the name of the subject. Basic reading comprehension would follow that "you" was no longer referring to Elthina.  

He followed the road. I don't feel that you are very smart. 

Nothing about those two sentences feel connected. 

He followed the road. I don't feel that he is very smart. 

There is a connection there. Same subject. "You" =/= her. 

She followed the road. I don't feel that her attitude was very smart. 

Again similar subjects so it makes sense to connect the two of them. 

She followed the road. I don't feel that your attitude was very smart. 

There is little connection there. You go from speaking about one subject to speaking about another subject.

There would be no need to change "her" to "you" otherwise. 

Basic reading comprehension. As you said yourself. 

And yes it's quite common to change subjects in the same paragraph. For someone who bashes others reading comprehension you certainly don't seem very aware of it yourself. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 mai 2011 - 11:11 .