4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Well]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Deztyn,

That's a fair question. Can Anders reconcile the Spirit of Justice that he believes has become an entity of Vengeance now that the Kirkwall Chantry has been destroyed? Justice (or Vengeance, take your pick on names) dominates him when he loses his composure, and he nearly killed a little girl Ella. I'd imagine that Sebastian acknowledging that he sees Anders face in the mages but knows they aren't to blame if he's killed implies that Starkhaven may have a better outcome for the mages with him as the new ruler.

He did kill Ella if you dont pick the right dialog.

[TEWR]

the thing is, can Vengeance be called a demon if he does what he does for the right reasons? Demons just want to destroy and rule over the world. Justice/Vengeance doesn't want to destroy the world and make it his own. He's fighting for a goal.

This, to me, only serves to strengthen that he isn't an evil Fade Spirit. Just misguided. Justice and vengeance are two sides of the same coin, with one side being a darker shade.

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

A lone psycopath rogue can kill hundreds of highly trained individuals,

Abominations can't either.  Max casualties from an abomination was 70 and that was over a period of months. 

burn down villages,

A midaevel style villiage?  Of course he could.  Not even that hard. 

mind control people to help them in their destruction and raise the dead?

Abominations can't mind control people either as a class.  Mind control seems to be a very advanced and specific form of bloodmagic that is difficult to learn, difficult to control, and isn't anywhere nearly as good as advertised.  Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it since everyone important in Thedas would already by mind-controlled by bloodmagic cabalists (or by Tevinter).

Let's not forget summoning demons and corrupting more individuals to do the same.

Cohorts and henchman.

edit: against their will.

Coercion.

Look I am not saying that untrained magic isn't very dangerous, and NO ONE (reasonably anyway) is saying that magic should be unregulated or that the people don't have a valid public interest in seeing that mages are properly trained.

However, the whole abomination thing seems to be  fear mongering by the chantry (viewing with alarm) to turn a valid if very rare problem into an excuse for monpolizing all magical power by the Chantry.

If the Chantry were REALLY interested in fighting abominations, they'd train everyone in antimagic warrior techniques that wanted to learn AND they'd allow research into possession.

-Polaris

[Lewie]

So if Anders is.. as he says himself, an abomination. Why do i have to support his rebellion? Whos rebellion am i supporting exactly? Anders? Vengeance? As far as i recall Justice abhored the killing of innocents, so he is gone.

Good mages i support, all the way.
Templars i support all the way.

[IanPolaris]

louise101 wrote...

So if Anders is.. as he says himself, an abomination. Why do i have to support his rebellion? Whos rebellion am i supporting exactly? Anders? Vengeance? As far as i recall Justice abhored the killing of innocents, so he is gone.

Good mages i support, all the way.
Templars i support all the way.

Just because Anders is a terrorist and abomination (I agree wholeheartedly on both counts) doesn't mean he's wrong.  All you have to decide is that being a mage doesn't automatically condemn someone to death because a fruit-loop (and clearly fruit-loop) knight commander decides that all mages should die just for being mages.

You decide that it's wrong and immoral to condemn an entire group to death for the crime of another.

It really is that simple and it really is that black and white in spite of what Bioware wants you to believe.

-Polaris

[TEWR]

louise101 wrote...

So if Anders is.. as he says himself, an abomination. Why do i have to support his rebellion? Whos rebellion am i supporting exactly? Anders? Vengeance? As far as i recall Justice abhored the killing of innocents, so he is gone.

Good mages i support, all the way.
Templars i support all the way.

Take Justice to Amaranthine and leave the city to burn. He recognizes that you can't always save everyone in the name of justice, that people will die in war, if you use the persuade option.

[LobselVith8]

Louise101,

On the rivalry path, it is Vengeance who is responsible for the destruction of the Chantry. Anders admits he's having blackouts before the explosion transpires. However, I don't think it's a reason to side with the templars - if you feel that Anders should pay for what he's done, kill him. Why should every Circle mage be condemned to execution for his actions?

Well,

Hawke was able to talk down "Justice" because my protagonist had a strong Friendship with him, but I know he kills Ella if this isn't the case. That still leaves me to wonder if Anders would be of any use to the mage revolution (whether it is knowledge about the explosive he may have learned about from Dworkin the Mad, or the knowledge that Justice may possess from his (possibly) long existence), or if Sebastian would be a better for the mages as the new ruler of Starkhaven.

[Lewie]

IanPolaris wrote...

louise101 wrote...

So if Anders is.. as he says himself, an abomination. Why do i have to support his rebellion? Whos rebellion am i supporting exactly? Anders? Vengeance? As far as i recall Justice abhored the killing of innocents, so he is gone.

Good mages i support, all the way.
Templars i support all the way.

Just because Anders is a terrorist and abomination (I agree wholeheartedly on both counts) doesn't mean he's wrong.  All you have to decide is that being a mage doesn't automatically condemn someone to death because a fruit-loop (and clearly fruit-loop) knight commander decides that all mages should die just for being mages.

You decide that it's wrong and immoral to condemn an entire group to death for the crime of another.

It really is that simple and it really is that black and white in spite of what Bioware wants you to believe.

-Polaris

Its wrong and immoral to condemn a group to death, yet its okay to let a demon blow up half a city and start a war. Gotcha.

[HogarthHughes 3]

I don't think Sebastian would be a very good ally to the mages even if you kill Anders and try to protect them. At least not on the rivalry path. His dialogue before the final battle, along with his general opinion of mages in the third Act, seem to indicate to me very strongly that he was still quite pro-circle. He would likely have helped Meredith if Hawke didn't side with the mages.  This isn't really a surprise though, considering he is a devout servant of the Chantry.

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 13 mai 2011 - 01:58 .

[IanPolaris]

Lob,

Actually it's one of those choices that isn't a choice. All Hawke's get a special dialog option that can prevent Anders from killing Ella.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

louise101 wrote...
Its wrong and immoral to condemn a group to death, yet its okay to let a demon blow up half a city and start a war. Gotcha.

Nope.  I kill Anders for what he's done every time.  He chose to become what he is and he chose on some level to kill innocents.

Comdemning mages for Ander's acts has nothing to do with Anders...and it is wrong and immoral.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...

I don't think Sebastian would be a very good ally to the mages even if you kill Anders and try to protect them. At least not on the rivalry path. His dialogue before the final battle, along with his general opinion of mages in the third Act, seem to indicate to me very strongly that he was still quite pro-circle. He would likely have helped Meredith if Hawke didn't side with the mages.

Possibly.  Seb certainly leans pro-templar to be sure (not suprising), but Seb has serious issues with Meredith and does view mages as people and in the end (when you talk with him before the final battle if you went pro-mage) does say that Andrasted did side with the downtrodden.  He's still not at all sure about mages, but it does strike me as potentially a Saul of Tharsus moment for him.

-Polaris

[HogarthHughes 3]

IanPolaris wrote...

Possibly.  Seb certainly leans pro-templar to be sure (not suprising), but Seb has serious issues with Meredith and does view mages as people and in the end (when you talk with him before the final battle if you went pro-mage) does say that Andrasted did side with the downtrodden.  He's still not at all sure about mages, but it does strike me as potentially a Saul of Tharsus moment for him.

-Polaris

Maybe.  I still think he would be neutral towards the mages rebelling at best, and would rather things just go back to the way they were.

[LobselVith8]

Perhaps, HogarthHughes 3, but when Sebastian aids a pro-mage Hawke, he acknowledged that the templars need to be stopped. He doesn't come out and say mages should be free like Bethany does, but he did say the templars should be stopped, which surprised me (given his conversation with Fenris about the apostates in Hawke's group). If Hawke is at his side, especially as a mage, I can see Starkhaven as a better place for mages than if Anders is spared. When Hawke says to Sebastian that the Circle shouldn't be a place of torture, he agrees with the Champion.

[Lewie]

IanPolaris wrote...

louise101 wrote...
Its wrong and immoral to condemn a group to death, yet its okay to let a demon blow up half a city and start a war. Gotcha.

Nope.  I kill Anders for what he's done every time.  He chose to become what he is and he chose on some level to kill innocents.

Comdemning mages for Ander's acts has nothing to do with Anders...and it is wrong and immoral.

-Polaris

So you support his cause up until that choice? If what Anders did was wrong, it didn't just 'come about' at the last minute. Anders had changed way before that, so if someone like that was leading a rebellion... you trust it? Blindly?

Thats the responsible choice i take it? 

[IanPolaris]

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Possibly.  Seb certainly leans pro-templar to be sure (not suprising), but Seb has serious issues with Meredith and does view mages as people and in the end (when you talk with him before the final battle if you went pro-mage) does say that Andrasted did side with the downtrodden.  He's still not at all sure about mages, but it does strike me as potentially a Saul of Tharsus moment for him.

-Polaris

Maybe.  I still think he would be neutral towards the mages rebelling at best, and would rather things just go back to the way they were.

Given that Seb was trained and groomed from a young age to be a Brother in the Chantry, that doesn't suprise me in the slightest, but he is smart enough to know that that is no longer in the cards.  The fact he is willing to admit that the Templars are in the wrong and admits that mages are human beings with maker given rights and that Andraste did champion the downtrodden are IMO important first steps.

-Polaris

[TEWR]

I think DA2 gave everyone choices, but what those choices will affect in the long run is yet to be seen. If that's the case, the naysayers and upset fans may change their stance. As of now, our choices concerning the mage-Templar war revolves around Anders' fate and who we chose as our allies.

Maybe this was Bioware's intention? It's certainly given everyone a lot of stuff to talk about, like this thread for example. 90 pages of discussing the RoA.

[IanPolaris]

louise101 wrote...
So you support his cause up until that choice? If what Anders did was wrong, it didn't just 'come about' at the last minute. Anders had changed way before that, so if someone like that was leading a rebellion... you trust it? Blindly?

Thats the responsible choice i take it? 

Do I think that Anders is basically right?  Yes.

Does that mean I support how he went about it?  Not at all.

There is a wide gulf between those two things.  I also point out that you might not know what Anders did until just before he did it.

-Polaris

[Deztyn]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Deztyn,

That's a fair question. Can Anders reconcile the Spirit of Justice that he believes has become an entity of Vengeance now that the Kirkwall Chantry has been destroyed? Justice (or Vengeance, take your pick on names) dominates him when he loses his composure, and he nearly killed a little girl Ella. I'd imagine that Sebastian acknowledging that he sees Anders face in the mages but knows they aren't to blame if he's killed implies that Starkhaven may have a better outcome for the mages with him as the new ruler.

He will killl Ella if Hawke doesn't choose the magic response, I don't think it's fair to absolve him of that when Hawke has to use her soft persuasion skill to get him to stop.

I think that being further involved with an actual war or open rebellion would just feed into his issues. He'd be exposed to even more injustices, have more reasons to crack, I don't know that he'd have another Big Boom moment, but another situation like Ella's wouldn't be out of place.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

the thing is, can Vengeance be called a demon if he does what he does for the right reasons? Demons just want to destroy and rule over the world. Justice/Vengeance doesn't want to destroy the world and make it his own. He's fighting for a goal.

This, to me, only serves to strengthen that he isn't an evil Fade Spirit. Just misguided. Justice and vengeance are two sides of the same coin, with one side being a darker shade.

That's a simplistic view, I think it would be more accurate to say a demon wants to exert it's control over a world it doesn't understand. In that they're not really different from Justice.

IanPolaris wrote...
Abominations can't either.  Max casualties from an abomination was 70 and that was over a period of months. 

Correction. That's the largest number we're given. Amelia also killed 70 people and there's no indication of how long it takes. We're never even given a number for Redcliffe, it could be the magic number again, or it could be 150.

A midaevel style villiage?  Of course he could.  Not even that hard.

And there's a codex entry that suggests abominations have been responsible for the destruction of cities. It's not irrefutable truth, but it seems an odd thing to put in a letter if it wasn't verifiable some way in universe.

Abominations can't mind control people either as a class.

Demons can and do control people's minds, at the very least they are able to influence the weak minded to such a degree it's nearly indistinguishable from mind control. See: Court Jester Teagan in Redcliffe, or the Templar from the Broken Circle who's convinced he's defending his wife and children.

If the Chantry were REALLY interested in fighting abominations, they'd train everyone in antimagic warrior techniques that wanted to learn AND they'd allow research into possession.

I see a lot of people suggest this and will never understand it.

Why should they open up Templar training to everyone?

I know you hate the Chantry and they are a universally evil organization that does nothing good for anyone in the world ever. Let's move beyond that for a second. What reason do they have to open up Templar training to non-templars?

In universe you can't acquire the skills from a book of InstaLearning. Keran trained for five years before we meet him and he's still a recruit. Carver is still a recruit at the end of Act III after six or so years of training and we know he was a competent warrior before that, so Keran isn't likely an exception. What reason does the Chantry have for spending it's time and resources training the non-templar Templars when they already take any Andrastian with the right skills who wants to join?

Modifié par Deztyn, 13 mai 2011 - 02:14 .

[IanPolaris]

If the Chantry were really concerned about protecting mages from mundanes and from themselves (and vice versa) then at least SOME templar training should be made public knowledge.

If training were available to guardsmen (perhaps even select guardsmen) that needed it to control magic and if the people knew that mages could be thus controlled by publically common knowledge, then people would fear mages less.

The fact that the Chantry actually persecutes those that try to get anti-magic training and addicts those that do with lyrium tells me that the Chantry doesn't care at all about mages except how to control them for their own (Chantry's) ends. Yes I do think the Chantry is overall an evil (or at least immoral) organization.

-Polaris

[Lewie]

IanPolaris wrote...

louise101 wrote...
So you support his cause up until that choice? If what Anders did was wrong, it didn't just 'come about' at the last minute. Anders had changed way before that, so if someone like that was leading a rebellion... you trust it? Blindly?

Thats the responsible choice i take it? 

Do I think that Anders is basically right?  Yes.

Does that mean I support how he went about it?  Not at all.

There is a wide gulf between those two things.  I also point out that you might not know what Anders did until just before he did it.

-Polaris

Wide gulfs? So there actually is a grey area? There has to be now, of course.

[IanPolaris]

louise101 wrote...

Wide gulfs? So there actually is a grey area? There has to be now, of course.

Actually there isn't.  What Anders wants is laudable.  Resorting to the outright murder of innocents to get it (and I don't include Elthina in that number) is not.

What's the difficulty?

-Polaris

[Deztyn]

IanPolaris wrote...

If the Chantry were really concerned about protecting mages from mundanes and from themselves (and vice versa) then at least SOME templar training should be made public knowledge.

If training were available to guardsmen (perhaps even select guardsmen) that needed it to control magic and if the people knew that mages could be thus controlled by publically common knowledge, then people would fear mages less.

The fact that the Chantry actually persecutes those that try to get anti-magic training and addicts those that do with lyrium tells me that the Chantry doesn't care at all about mages except how to control them for their own (Chantry's) ends. Yes I do think the Chantry is overall an evil (or at least immoral) organization.

-Polaris

Again, why should it be necessary to have half trained templars in town to protect against mages, when there are already full templars in town to protect against mages?

There's no practical difference between what you want the Chantry to do and what they are already doing. The Chantry wants to keep their secrets and their power, I don't blame them for that. The most important thing is they're not doing it at the expense of the common people as you are trying to say.

Modifié par Deztyn, 13 mai 2011 - 02:28 .

[Dave of Canada]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

Abominations can't either.  Max casualties from an abomination was 70 and that was over a period of months.[/quote]

Redcliffe.

[quote]
burn down villages,
[/quote]

A midaevel style villiage?  Of course he could.  Not even that hard. 

Alone? He might be able to light a house, maybe two before being stopped. He'd need tools too, not simply cough and have the entire house explode.

[quote]Abominations can't mind control people either as a class.[/quote]

Demons can do it, why can't abominations?

[quote]Mind control seems to be a very advanced and specific form of bloodmagic that is difficult to learn[/quote]

Evidence of this?

[quote]difficult to control[/quote]

Again, evidence of this?

[quote]and isn't anywhere nearly as good as advertised.[/quote]

Except how we see a dozen blood mage thralls from even the templar ranks, Idunna almost made you (and your companions) kill yourself and such.

[quote]Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it since everyone important in Thedas would already by mind-controlled by bloodmagic cabalists (or by Tevinter).[/quote]

And how do we know it hasn't already happened before?

[quote]Cohorts and henchman.[/quote]

Demons and abominations compare to them?

[quote]Coercion.[/quote]

Being convinced to do something yourself compares to being forced to do it against your will?

[quote]Look I am not saying that untrained magic isn't very dangerous, and NO ONE (reasonably anyway) is saying that magic should be unregulated or that the people don't have a valid public interest in seeing that mages are properly trained.[/quote]

That wasn't the point that was being argued.

[quote]However, the whole abomination thing seems to be  fear mongering by the chantry (viewing with alarm) to turn a valid if very rare problem into an excuse for monpolizing all magical power by the Chantry.[/quote]

Except we've heard that other countries that don't have the Chantry / Circle have abominations problems, they just handle it differently?

[quote]If the Chantry were REALLY interested in fighting abominations, they'd train everyone in antimagic warrior techniques that wanted to learn [/quote]

Templar.

[quote]AND they'd allow research into possession.
[/quote]

Tevinter is doing it.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 mai 2011 - 02:34 .

[IanPolaris]

Deztyn wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

If the Chantry were really concerned about protecting mages from mundanes and from themselves (and vice versa) then at least SOME templar training should be made public knowledge.

If training were available to guardsmen (perhaps even select guardsmen) that needed it to control magic and if the people knew that mages could be thus controlled by publically common knowledge, then people would fear mages less.

The fact that the Chantry actually persecutes those that try to get anti-magic training and addicts those that do with lyrium tells me that the Chantry doesn't care at all about mages except how to control them for their own (Chantry's) ends. Yes I do think the Chantry is overall an evil (or at least immoral) organization.

-Polaris

Again, why should it be necessary to have half trained templars in town to protect against mages, when there are already full templars in town to protect against mages?

Why?  That should be obvious.  Most kings (and nobles in general) don't like the idea of foreign armies on their soil.  Keep local armies local.  If you relate the Templars to an organization like the Chantry, the Chantry gets ideas like it (rather than the king) should be in charge of more than just magic (see Kirkwall as Exhibit A).

There's no practical difference between what you want the Chantry to do and what they are already doing. The Chantry want to keep their secrets and their power, I don't blame them for that. More importantly, they're not doing it at the expense of the common people as you are trying to say.

Yes they are and there is a HUGE practical difference.  If the Chantry decided to train the trainers, basic anti-magic techniques could be common place within a generation at most (two at the very outside) and that would mean that people would know that competant anti-magic forces would be there to deal with any rogue mage, abomination, or malificar within minutes or at worst hours...and there would be a much geater number of such as well AND they would be local boys subject to local lords and NOT subject to the whim of a distant Divine.  That's a big deal.  Remember the CHantry was almost kicked out of Fereldan once for it's open abuse of power and open support of a hated and brutal occupation.

Given all that, I most certainly do blame the Chantry or at best consider the Chantry's please for "commoner protection" from magic to be hypocritical at best.

-Polaris