4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

They didn't want to figt off the templars so hey!

How they fight the Templars in the cutscenes really suggests that those mages just want to die.

...They ignored a funnel. 
 

How stupid you can be? 

[Xilizhra]

They're not exactly trained in combat...

[Ryzaki]

Xilizhra wrote...

They're not exactly trained in combat...

Neither am I. I wouldn't have ignored a funnel. 

And Orsino doesn't even have that excuse. He did it too. 

[Rifneno]

Xilizhra wrote...

They're not exactly trained in combat...

Apparently neither is Meredith.

Orsino:  So you ready to do this thing?
Meredith:  No.  Go rally your forces in a room with only a narrow hallway to enter where my men will charge like lemmings into your combined AE bombardments.
Orsino:  Err...
Meredith:  Go, mage!
Isabela:  I'm telling you, it's something in the water.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Did I mention that DA2 has the biggest amount of stupid ever assembled in one game?

Yes? Worth saying again.

[EmperorSahlertz]

GavrielKay wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Finally someone who understands Elthina's posistion. Yet, it won't change anything. All the Elthina haters aren't hating because she didn't take a side. They are hating because she didn't take their side.

And finally someone who admits that Elthina has in fact chosen a side.

What?.. I don't... I didn't.. What?

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...

Frankly my Hawke didn't believe it was the only way...but rather the most efficent. There's no time to have a rally and calm the people down. Meredith holds all the power and she's dead set on the annullment. The templars are gonna win vs the mages and the onlything helping the mages would do (in my Hawke's eyes he doesn't know about Cullen being a decent guy yet) is drag out the fighting and cause more collateral damage. Her suggestion about the people rioting to them made a smidge of sense though they really didn't believe it. To them the mages summoning demons and the demons being drawn to the desperate mages was the true threat. As for Meredith no Hawke doesn't really believe her. He knows she just wants them dead to fuel her paranoia. Sadly thanks to stupid Anders she then had enough power to carry her orders out. The most my Hawkes can do is make the RoA as quick as possible. 

As for Meredith...yeah once lighstaber sword hit Hawke was facepalming. He already heard rumors but didn't fully believe it until right then. 

For me (and I'm speaking ONLY for myself here), I think you've touched on the one justifiable pro-Templar position:  that supporting the Templars may save more lives in the short term than trying to save the mages.  I can understand that view, the game does try to give you supporting evidence for that.

My canon choice is still to stand up for the mages because Meredith and co. have been treating them in a fashion to cause it to get to this point.  I can imagine a Hawke who just can't be bothered to get caught up in the cause of mage freedom, but I tend to play mages, so Hawke's pretty involved in wanting a world where she's not a wanted criminal just for making her own choices in life.

I still don't get people who really believe that the Chantry oppression of the mages is for the good of all.

edit:  clarified first sentence

Modifié par GavrielKay, 11 mai 2011 - 06:36 .

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Did I mention that DA2 has the biggest amount of stupid ever assembled in one game?

Yes? Worth saying again.

It's a shame to because DAO had quite a few smart people. Even if their plans constantly blew up in their faces the plans at least made sense.   

 And they didn't completely ignore everyone around them. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 11 mai 2011 - 06:36 .

[Silfren]

Rifneno wrote...

True.  But the fact other peoples are oppressed is no reason that this people should be.  I'm completely in favor of most of the groups you mentioned fighting for their rights (not so sure about the Dalish honestly).  If the game showed us the plight of the casteless and opened a door for them to fight for their rights, I'd be totally in support of that too.  Society will never advance in terms of equality if nobody's allowed to make the first step because it wouldn't be fair to the rest of the oppressed.

This.  Ever so much this.  Add to it that history is littered with examples of one group's successful push for basic rights making other groups' own fight that much easier. 

I also suspect that "But...but...but nobody is free.  Nobody!  So what are these guys whining about?!" is one of the rationales used in order to justify the complete dismissal of one group agitating for more freedom. 

Now, to go off on a mini-tangent:

There simply is no moral equivalency between, say, one group's freedom being limited according to their economic ability, and another group being restricted according to their legal status.  Someone, I forget whom, in response to the point that mages can't get married, stated that mages can indeed get married, in an attempt to prove "we" of the "pro-mage side" wrong. 

Oh, except, that's not what they wrote, not at all.  What they pointed out was that mages can get permission to get married, which pretty much destroys their attempt at disproving the notion that mages don't have it worse than anyone else.

The average person in Thedas, as far as we know, can get married when they choose.  The only non-mage class for whom this may be different is the nobility, who have been indicated to follow the tradition of arranged marriages.  But theirs is a tradition, not a legal restriction.  Again as far as we know, a noble can buck with tradition to marry according to their will.  Mages don't have this freedom.  They have to seek permission.  The thing about permission is that it can be denied. 

It bears repeating: there is no moral equivalency between a group whose limitations are in place due purely to how much spending power they have at their disposal, and a group whose limitations are caused by legal restrictions set upon them due to an accident of birth.

[Silfren]

Sylvianus wrote...

Excuse me I forgot Rifelno. As you're not very good at reading and understanding. I explain it to you before you distorts my words.

That means, in relation to facts, I decided to destroy what I saw as a threat. If I believed that the Templars were more a threat for the people, I would have attacked them.

Getting away from the mage vs templar debate entirely, I'm going to state point blank that part of any confusion lies with the obvious language barrier.  It is NOT always easy to figure out what you're trying to say, and that's not due to us being stupid. 

We can get the gist of your argument, don't get me wrong.  But sometimes, I, at least, have to read your post several times to make sense of it.  I'm not attacking you for having less than perfect English writing skills, please understand.  Just stating a fact.  

[EmperorSahlertz]

On what do you base your assumption about the marriage traditions of Thedas? I can only remember one marriage happening in DA, and that was between Alistair/Warden and Anora/Warden.

It wouldn't be too unusual to need to ask for permission to marry. Hell, there are some countries in our world, where you have to do just that (especially if you are homosexual). So why not Thedas aswell?

[Ryzaki]

GavrielKay wrote...
For me (and I'm speaking ONLY for myself here), I think you've touched on the one justifiable pro-Templar position:  that supporting the Templars may save more lives in the short term than trying to save the mages.  I can understand that view, the game does try to give you supporting evidence for that.

My canon choice is still to stand up for the mages because Meredith and co. have been treating them in a fashion to cause it to get to this point.  I can imagine a Hawke who just can't be bothered to get caught up in the cause of mage freedom, but I tend to play mages, so Hawke's pretty involved in wanting a world where she's not a wanted criminal just for making her own choices in life.

I still don't get people who really believe that the Chantry oppression of the mages is for the good of all.

edit:  clarified first sentence

There's plenty of justifiable pro-Templar positions even if you don't agree with them. Like there's plenty of justifiable pro-Mage positions even if I don't agree with them. 

Yeah I tend to play rogues/warriors with Bethany as a warden/dead so they really couldn't care about the mages in the circle. My Hawkes just want to live in peace not have to deal with a war breaking out with abominations and demons running rampant. 

Because in some ways it is. Abominations rarely if ever escape the tower, bloodmages don't tend to threaten the populace (the few that do are usually dealt with quickly). It has flaws but so does every institution. 

I don't mind the idea of circles. It's just the fact that it's run by a religious group and has no checks and balances system (the Chantry holds all the power in the relationship while the mages have none) is what makes it somewhat of a failure. Templars shouldn't be able to abuse mages without being harshly repremainded. Mages shouldn't be made tranquil without a large write up as to why they're being made tranquil (and they should always be given the option for a clean execution instead). Orsino should've been caught early on among other things. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 11 mai 2011 - 06:52 .

[Silfren]

TJPags wrote...



Stable =/= good.

...

This argument is a little odd, you know.  Out of those societies that are bandied about as not working like the Chantry-based societies, the one we know the most about - by far - is Tevinter.  Sure, it's stable.  But is it anyplace that anyone would want to live if they were not a powerful mage?  Given all we know about it, I think the honest answer for most people would have to be "no".

No, stable does not equal good.  No argument there. But what's the question?  Whether mages can be allowed to live free lives outside of a Circle tower without raining apocalyptic levels of death and destruction down on everyone because they are under extreme danger of being possessed by demons or turning to blood magic?  Or whether a society of free mages will inevitably lead to a magocracy?

Those are two different questions.  Trying to point out that stable =/= good is a straw man if you are arguing whether or not mages are capable of living freely without endangering the society as far as being able to resist demons and control their abilities.  Whether they would usurp power and enslave everyone around them a la Tevinter is a separate discussion.

[Silfren]

Deztyn wrote...

In places like Denerim or Kirkwall it might be fine. But rural areas with only a few hundred people per town at most? At the very least you're looking at boarding schools. And given the length of time involved, slow communications and dangers of travel it would still invite the "You can't have my children-- oops, she's an abomination kill her please before the whole village goes!" type situation as surely as the Circle system does.

This is entirely possible.  There's no perfect solution that will mean that nothing bad will ever happen no matter what.  That doesn't mean that there are aren't far better solutions than the current system.  (Edited to fix a typo in order to clarify).

Also, I think a lot of families would be far less inclined to hide their mage child from being discovered and taken away if they didn't have to fear that they'd never see that child again.  I'm not claiming that no parent would ever be dead against losing their child for even a short time, but I honestly don't think there's much reason to claim things wouldn't be substantially different.  Yes, the question of time, communication, and travel would cause problems, but a system that involved taking children to be trained, without also involving lifelong imprisonment, would be far and away better.  That isn't to say that abominations would never, ever happen.  But, um, they don't never, ever happen even with the Circles as they exist, do they?  Forcing mages into slavery serves only to create an environment under which some mages would actively seek out demons in a bid to freedom.  Allowing them to live free removes one particular temptation. 

Modifié par Silfren, 11 mai 2011 - 08:31 .

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Finally someone who understands Elthina's posistion. Yet, it won't change anything. All the Elthina haters aren't hating because she didn't take a side. They are hating because she didn't take their side.

And finally someone who admits that Elthina has in fact chosen a side.

What?.. I don't... I didn't.. What?

The whole argument over Elthina came up when someone said that she was an innocent bystander victim of Anders' terrorism.

Can we admit that refusing to do anything has the effect of supporting the status quo?  Can we admit that the mages, on their own, cannot change the status quo and would need outside help?

If we can admit those two things, then we see that Elthina refusing to step in has the effect of supporting the Templars.  There are essentially only two sides: 

Templars = status quo
mages = change

She didn't support the mages, so she did support the Templars.  She did it through inaction, but she did it.

Lyrics from "Freewill" by Rush, emphasis mine:

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;

I will choose a path that's clear-

I will choose Free Will.

[In Exile]

GavrielKay wrote...
I think Elthina should have supported Cullen in ousting Meredith. 

 

Cullen didn't want to oust Meredith.

[Silfren]

louise101 wrote...


What is an andrastian exactly? 

Elthina? the rebellious zealout peatrice? someone who actually believes in the all the chantry waffle? 

Specifically, a follower of Chantry doctrine--and I suspect the Chantry probably requires that people follow its doctrine very closely in order to qualify for the label. 

More loosely,though, someone who believes that Andraste was indeed the Maker's prophet.  Anders plainly states in Awakening, "I used to be a good little Andrastian.  I said my prayers, repented my sins, all of it."  DA2 party banter and some cutscene dialogues seem to indicate his belief in Andraste and the Maker haven't changed much.  So, while he's certainly not big on the Chantry, I think he could still be considered an Andrastian.

I'mma start using the term Chantrian to differentiate. 

[In Exile]

ETA:

Regardling Redcfliffe, the existence of the Circle (or not) would not have particularly affected Isolde's behaviour. The only possible scenario where Isolde would not have acted as she did would be one where Connor, as a mage, could inherit land and titles and be otherwise indestinguishable from other nobles, sort of being trained in magic.

Anything else - a period of her son being taken away from her and (especially) a removal from inheritance and you would have Isolde act to protect her son from being ripped (in her PoV) away from her.

But if we have a system were mages are identical to non-mages, with the only difference being that mages have powerful magic, then we suddenly have a system where there is a danger of abuse.

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...

There's plenty of justifiable pro-Templar positions even if you don't agree with them. Like there's plenty of justifiable pro-Mage positions even if I don't agree with them. 

I did say "for me" that's the justifiable one.  I have no doubt that folks with other viewpoints can come up with other justifications.  I simply accept that and disagree with them  

I don't mind the idea of circles. It's just the fact that it's run by a religious group and has no checks and balances system (the Chantry holds all the power in the relationship while the mages have none) is what makes it somewhat of a failure....

And pretty much nobody is arguing for completely free and unfettered mages.  After 1000 years though, perhaps it's time to try something new.

[Silfren]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The information about Natural Order was provided by David Gaider at the old forum. David Gaider said:

"They have their own ancient tradition. Without going into too much detail (as you don't know much about Rivain at all, at this point) they are pantheists. They don't believe in the Maker, but rather in the Natural Order. Many (especially in Kont-aar) have also converted to the Qun -- their religion and the Qun are not very contradictory."

I hope we hear a good deal more about Rivain in the future.  One thing that I'd like to understand more is how the Rivaini reconcile their seers with the Qun.  We have a codex that makes it clear their seers are beloved--even though these hedge mages often willingly allow themselves to be possessed--and yet the society is largely devoted to a religious philosophy that fears mages to such a degree that their "saarebas" are required to be heavily leashed (and supposedly have their tongues cut out?), and even holds that the Andrastian Templars are too lenient?  How does that work?

[Ryzaki]

GavrielKay wrote...
I did say "for me" that's the justifiable one.  I have no doubt that folks with other viewpoints can come up with other justifications.  I simply accept that and disagree with them  

Ah sorry about that. 

And pretty much nobody is arguing for completely free and unfettered mages.  After 1000 years though, perhaps it's time to try something new.

My issue with that is what is this new thing. And who exactly is going to fund it? Money doesn't grow on trees. Whoever funds the new circles is gonna want something out of it. (Money most likely and some influence). 

[GavrielKay]

In Exile wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
I think Elthina should have supported Cullen in ousting Meredith. 

 

Cullen didn't want to oust Meredith.

Not on his own, no.  He isn't written as a power hungry fellow.

But he was a true believer and if his Grand Cleric told him it was his mission to take over and clean up the abuses so that everyone would be safer (everyone including the Templars and citizens who would have less mages being driven mad in their midst), he seems to be the type who would do it.  He is written to be genuinely dedicated ot the cause of protecting mages from themselves as well as protecting others from the mages.  It shoudn't be too hard a logic leap to understand that everyone is safer if the mages aren't pushed to their limits.

[In Exile]

GavrielKay wrote...

The whole argument over Elthina came up when someone said that she was an innocent bystander victim of Anders' terrorism.

She is. She didn't perpetuate any of the abuse. The only argument that you have, the very argument that you have made here (I have it in bold) is that she did nothing.

Another poster (Rifneno, I believe) argued that Orsino was not responsible for blood magic in Kirkwall and especially not responsible for Quentin's murders because, even if he knew Quentin was an apostate practicing potentially forbidden magic, he did not commit any of the crime himself.

Well, if we argue that Elthina was guilty of the crimes of Meredith through inaction, the by that standard Orsino must be guilty of the crimes of the blood mage he harboured.

And, given the codex entry on the Rite of Annulment, at that point Meredith would actually be justified in evoking it.

Can we admit that refusing to do anything has the effect of supporting the status quo?  Can we admit that the mages, on their own, cannot change the status quo and would need outside help?

No, because refusing to do anything does not per se protect the status quo. Take a look at the fight for marriage equality: if the US government does nothing, at any level, eventually there will be marriage equality only through a popular movement. In the same way, not supporting extensive templar abuses can pave the way for reform.

But I agree that mages alone, in this highly exploitative system, cannot succeed withou non-mage support. It does not follow from this that inaction = support for the status quo.

If we can admit those two things, then we see that Elthina refusing to step in has the effect of supporting the Templars.  There are essentially only two sides:  

Then Orisono is guilty of supporting the blood mages, and the Rite of Annulment was justified by the laws of the Chantry.

Modifié par In Exile, 11 mai 2011 - 07:25 .

[Silfren]

Plaintiff wrote...

I think an 'Andrastian' is someone who believes Andraste was the Bride of the Maker, much in the same way that a 'Christian' is someone who believes Christ was the son of God. The 'Black Chantry' of the Tevinter Imperium believes in the Maker, or claims to, anyway, but according to its teachings, Andraste was just an ordinary woman.

You can be a 'good' mage and stay away from Blood Magic and still be an athiest.

Might be wrong, but I think the Imperium is considered to be Andrastian as well.  The problem with the definition lies in who has control of it.  Your example of Christ, for instance.  There are plenty of self-labeled Christians in the world who don't believe he was the son of God, and of course there's the offshoot of that argument which involves what precisely "son of God" means.  Other Christians may not--and often don't--consider them Christians, but that level of infighting is more or less why it is extremely difficult to pin down objective definitions. There's always going to be people who fall outside one group's parameter requirements of what it means to be a follower of a given religion.  This is why the loosest definition is generally the best one: one who is (or believes themselves) to be a follower of X."

Modifié par Silfren, 11 mai 2011 - 08:43 .

[In Exile]

GavrielKay wrote...
But he was a true believer and if his Grand Cleric told him it was his mission to take over and clean up the abuses so that everyone would be safer (everyone including the Templars and citizens who would have less mages being driven mad in their midst), he seems to be the type who would do it.  He is written to be genuinely dedicated ot the cause of protecting mages from themselves as well as protecting others from the mages.  It shoudn't be too hard a logic leap to understand that everyone is safer if the mages aren't pushed to their limits.

Cullen does not seem to be the type to politic. If Elthina removed Meredith, and if there was a movement to place Cullen as Knight Commander, I believe he would do it.

But at the same time it is consistent for his character to defend Meredith against charges of incompetence unless there was evidence she was unfit for her job.

And if Elthina had evidence that the templars were being abusive, it seems it would be those templars that were removed.

Once again, it comes down to the fact that the templars are autonomous and while Meredith answers to Elthina, she does not send her daily reports about the rape and abuse in the Circle. The only defender for the Circle was Orsino, and he was even more incompetent than Elthina.