1927 réponses à ce sujet

[Vormaerin]

David Gaider wrote...

Hm? Which harsh view of magic and mages is this?

They are failing to distinguish between her relaying Divine Justinia's views, her own personal opinion of certain factions of the mages, and general grimness in "Faith"  and her own personal views on individual mages and magic in general.

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Maybe we should take the opportunity to ask David Gaider why Leliana seemed to take such a harsh view of magic and mages as Sister Nightingale since the thread derailed from the topic of Anders being Justified?

Hm? Which harsh view of magic and mages is this?

When you meed "Sister Nightengale"/Lelianna, she overtly says that the world is watching and Kirkwall must "not be allowd to fall to magic" (a phraseology you normally hear from only the most hard-core templars).  If Alistair/Anora granted the mages boon, she adds especially after what happened in Fereldan.

She goes on to say rather snarkily IMHO, that the chantry has always "tolerated those that wanted to be free of the chantry" but the resolutionsists have taken it a step farther.

She sounds pretty hard-core anti-mage to me and completly unlike the BFF (and sometimes lover) of mages in DAO.

-Polaris

[Camenae]

Oneiropolos wrote...

 Are you even still honestly looking at your accusations?

I think you already know the answer to that question... >_<

[David Gaider]

AlexXIV wrote...
I am not so much concerned about change of lore, but more about having a skewed view on morality. I mean if you say say tranquility is fine, then there is a small step to actually saying slavery is fine. And then maybe everything else is also fine.

I must have missed a step-- I think rape and murder is fine? Slavery is fine? When did I say these things?

Is K-Mart having a fire sale on reductio ad absurdum? What's the deal?

[Darth Krytie]

David Gaider wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
I am not so much concerned about change of lore, but more about having a skewed view on morality. I mean if you say say tranquility is fine, then there is a small step to actually saying slavery is fine. And then maybe everything else is also fine.

I must have missed a step-- I think rape and murder is fine? Slavery is fine? When did I say these things?

Is K-Mart having a fire sale on reductio ad absurdum? What's the deal?

I think he's mistaking you including something in the game for condoning it. Like some sort of bizarre meta.

Modifié par Darth Krytie, 03 avril 2011 - 08:21 .

[Vormaerin]

IanPolaris wrote...

You'd be wrong.  It turns out that the RCC has a very well established chain of command, and adminstrative authority would go to the Pope's chancellor (until a new pope was elected) while spiritual authority would be collectively held by the College of Cardinals (you know..those guys one step DOWN on the chain of command?)
-Polaris

And you have heard that the well defined chain of command for the Circles is Grand Cleric to Knight Commander....

So what is the problem?

[IanPolaris]

Vormaerin wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Hm? Which harsh view of magic and mages is this?

They are failing to distinguish between her relaying Divine Justinia's views, her own personal opinion of certain factions of the mages, and general grimness in "Faith"  and her own personal views on individual mages and magic in general.

This is quite possible which is why some of us (I think I'm right in saying Lob and I in particular) would like clarification given her statements in my prior posts.  How much of that is Lelianna's personal opinion and how much is the opinion of the Divine?

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Vormaerin wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

You'd be wrong.  It turns out that the RCC has a very well established chain of command, and adminstrative authority would go to the Pope's chancellor (until a new pope was elected) while spiritual authority would be collectively held by the College of Cardinals (you know..those guys one step DOWN on the chain of command?)
-Polaris

And you have heard that the well defined chain of command for the Circles is Grand Cleric to Knight Commander....

So what is the problem?

Because this is the first time any of us have heard of it, thats what my problem is.

-Polaris

[AlexXIV]

Dave of Canada wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

And he created slavery?

He's saying what's happening to the mages isn't slavery.
That isn't saying "slavery is fine".
You're seeing what you want to see.

So if I had slaves but said they are not slaves it would be better than having slaves and admitting it? 'Slave' or 'slavery' are just words. I am not discussing semantics. If you look at the roman empire, some slaves led a better life than many free people who lived in poverty. The problem is that basic human rights are stripped from them. Maybe my mistake is that I can't think like a medivial person and adopt their values 100% but then again I doubt most people can. We (humanity) would not be where we aren now if we would not question things, actually everything. Even though I'd admit that this is the case thanks to some rare genious individuals and not the broad majority of people.

If we discussed what exactly a slave is we would probably end up with something like 'everyone is a slave'. I don't know why people even discuss whether the tranquil are slaves or not if being tranquil is possibly worse than being a slave.

[Vormaerin]

IanPolaris wrote...

When you meed "Sister Nightengale"/Lelianna, she overtly says that the world is watching and Kirkwall must "not be allowd to fall to magic" (a phraseology you normally hear from only the most hard-core templars).  If Alistair/Anora granted the mages boon, she adds especially after what happened in Fereldan.

She goes on to say rather snarkily IMHO, that the chantry has always "tolerated those that wanted to be free of the chantry" but the resolutionsists have taken it a step farther.

She sounds pretty hard-core anti-mage to me and completly unlike the BFF (and sometimes lover) of mages in DAO.

-Polaris

It is also possible that she is arguing  "Kirkwall can't fall to magic"   BECAUSE that will lead to anarchy, war, death, mayhem, and general unpleasantness.   "Because I hate mages" is not the only reason to object to the collapse of a Circle.

[AlexXIV]

David Gaider wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
I am not so much concerned about change of lore, but more about having a skewed view on morality. I mean if you say say tranquility is fine, then there is a small step to actually saying slavery is fine. And then maybe everything else is also fine.

I must have missed a step-- I think rape and murder is fine? Slavery is fine? When did I say these things?

Is K-Mart having a fire sale on reductio ad absurdum? What's the deal?

Well you are defending the chantry for making mages tranquil, or are you not?

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
When you meed "Sister Nightengale"/Lelianna, she overtly says that the world is watching and Kirkwall must "not be allowd to fall to magic" (a phraseology you normally hear from only the most hard-core templars).

Why? Would Kirkwall falling be a good thing in any instance? Would it be better if she said "Kirkwall must not be allowed to fall... but if it falls by magic, I guess that would be okay."?

If Alistair/Anora granted the mages boon, she adds especially after what happened in Fereldan.

Well, what happened in Ferelden? Do you know?

She goes on to say rather snarkily IMHO, that the chantry has always "tolerated those that wanted to be free of the chantry" but the resolutionsists have taken it a step farther.

Haven't they?

She sounds pretty hard-core anti-mage to me and completly unlike the BFF (and sometimes lover) of mages in DAO.

So after killing a group of Resolutionists out to kill her, she wasn't sufficiently sympathetic? She specifically stated that a peaceful compromise wasn't a good idea? Perhaps she should have mused more on how silly the whole thing was, maybe sang a song?

I dunno. I'm at a loss.

[sphinxess]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]David Gaider wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Maybe we should take the opportunity to ask David Gaider why Leliana seemed to take such a harsh view of magic and mages as Sister Nightingale since the thread derailed from the topic of Anders being Justified?[/quote]

Hm? Which harsh view of magic and mages is this? [/quote]

In the quest "Faith," for the DLC The Exiled Prince. Leliana seemed to take a harsh tone about the mages when Hawke and Sebastian Vael got to speak with her. I was wondering if it was intentional because she was now a Chantry operative.[/quote

Durn - I never got the DLC - she always had kinda "burn her at the stake" views I thought in DA:O - like the maker still being around

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

IanPolaris wrote...

Because this is the first time any of us have heard of it, thats what my problem is.

-Polaris

Wait wait...

So ANY new lore, or additions to lore, you are going to get upset about because it's the first you've heard of it?

Maker's breath.

Are you expecting the writers to send you notes asking if their expansions on lore are acceptable before they put it in a game now, if you're going to have 'problems' with it?

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 03 avril 2011 - 08:39 .

[Vormaerin]

IanPolaris wrote...

Because this is the first time any of us have heard of it, thats what my problem is.

-Polaris

Well....okay?   I can think of at least ten thousand things about the world that haven't been defined or, at least, published.   So new things are a constant threat.

[David Gaider]

AlexXIV wrote...
Well you are defending the chantry for making mages tranquil, or are you not?

When did I do this?

[LobselVith8]

David Gaider wrote...

Why? Would Kirkwall falling be a good thing in any instance? Would it be better if she said "Kirkwall must not be allowed to fall... but if it falls by magic, I guess that would be okay."?

I think it's that some of us interpreted it to mean if mages gained freedom from the Chantry. When she said, "The whole world is watching Kirkwall. If it falls to magic, none of us are safe," that was the impression some people had.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 03 avril 2011 - 08:31 .

[Oneiropolos]

Damn. Where were you people when David Gaider revealed to us that Anders wasn't his actual name and it was just a nickname because his family was from the Anderfels? I mean, he had most of us staring stunned at the screen with that revelation. Would you guys be arguing that since he never -says- Anders isn't his real name and the Codex entries all call him Anders, DG was changing the lore of the game to stun the internet fans?

[Camenae]

David Gaider wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Well you are defending the chantry for making mages tranquil, or are you not?

When did I do this?

He's saying that because you said "Mages/Tranquil mages aren't slaves" that means you think slavery is okay. 

[Vormaerin]

AlexXIV wrote...

Well you are defending the chantry for making mages tranquil, or are you not?

Are you still insisting that your definition of what Tranquil does is the one true way?

Also, are you distinguishing between  "mages made Tranquil legally, because they proved unable to resist possession" or Ser Alrik's  "he exists" reason?    Because the morality of those two things is quite different.

[David Gaider]

Camenae wrote...
He's saying that because you said "Mages/Tranquil mages aren't slaves" that means you think slavery is okay. 

Really? Just the lack of slavery is an endorsement? The fact that they are oppressed and virtual prisoners isn't bad enough in and of itself?

[Camenae]

David Gaider wrote...

Camenae wrote...
He's saying that because you said "Mages/Tranquil mages aren't slaves" that means you think slavery is okay. 

Really? Just the lack of slavery is an endorsement? The fact that they are oppressed and virtual prisoners isn't bad enough in and of itself?

I don't know...that's what he's saying!

[DarkSpiral]

AlexXIV wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
I am not so much concerned about change of lore, but more about having a skewed view on morality. I mean if you say say tranquility is fine, then there is a small step to actually saying slavery is fine. And then maybe everything else is also fine.

I must have missed a step-- I think rape and murder is fine? Slavery is fine? When did I say these things?

Is K-Mart having a fire sale on reductio ad absurdum? What's the deal?

Well you are defending the chantry for making mages tranquil, or are you not?

Uh...he hasn't done anything of the sort, in this thread at the very least, that I can see.  He said the mages aren't slaves, which they literally are not.  If their situation fits your personal interpretation of slavery, dandy.  They still aren't.  Prinsoners, sure.  Abused, you bet, moreso in Kirkwall than in Ferelden.  But they aren't slaves.

[Vormaerin]

David Gaider wrote...

Camenae wrote...
He's saying that because you said "Mages/Tranquil mages aren't slaves" that means you think slavery is okay. 

Really? Just the lack of slavery is an endorsement? The fact that they are oppressed and virtual prisoners isn't bad enough in and of itself?

Apparently not.  He is more aware than you of the implications of Tranquility, so he's quite sure that you are evil if you think its ever right.

[upsettingshorts]

The forums do this all the time. If I say "Cerberus aren't terrorists" that means I'm defending their organization. Or if I say, "Anders is a terrorist" that means I hate mages and their cause.

Words have meanings. Let's try to stick to them.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 avril 2011 - 08:32 .