1927 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

David Gaider wrote...

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

When did I do this?

Well I thought I read it between the lines, but I could probably have read it wrong. In which case I apologize.

The whole deal with saying they are free, just stripped of the desire to use their freedom. And they can be creative, if there was a logical reason kinda sounded like an excuse for me. I mean one can't take people's motivation to do something and then say 'Well they could do it, if they had any motivation'. I mean, you can say that, but that's not right in my eyes.

[supakillaii]

David Gaider wrote...

And there is no "chain of command"-- that codex defined the heirarchy of a religious order, not a military unit. A religious order that is part of a fantasy world, and one where "common sense" -- especially the brand you've been peddling -- need not apply.

In my opinion, "does not apply" would be better than "need not apply", looking at all the things that people have done in the games :innocent:

[LobselVith8]

Oneiropolos wrote...

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?

He's probably going to kill all the mages in DA3 after this thread is said and done. We're never going to find out what Anders real name is. I'm never going to see my mage revolution or find out what happened to my Surana Warden and Morrigan. No Magi Renissance.

[sphinxess]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

That sounds logical - say the Qunari invade during a mage- templar conflict - Mages are the best line of defense against cannons

[IanPolaris]

First of all, I apologize for snapping at you.  You do write the lore and your word is official.  I disagree with the continuity and legality issues, but it's your call tomake and I was out of line.

Now, hopefully on a more positive note, let me explain where and why I got my impressions because I fear we may be talking past each other.  I really (along with others) would really like to know if Lelianna has changed and if so why...and how much of her words were hers and how much were Divine Justina's.  With that, I'll respond point by point.

David Gaider wrote...

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."?

The impression I got was that if the mages were allowed to be free, then Kirkwall would automatically become Tevinter Imperium mark 2.  In fact she out and out says that, yet I have no reason to believe that is what would remotely happen least of all in Kirkwall (regardless of what some of the clear lunatics on both sides would argue).

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.

In the first point, given that the extra line only happens if your Warden freed the Fereldan circle (and King Alistair doesn't indicate anything to the contrary when you meet him...and neither does Queen Anora), it seems logical and reasonable to presume she's directly refering to the warden boon....or is there something else we don't know about?  [I can only go with what's presented in the game]

Haven't they?

They have, but that wasn't the snarky part I am talking about.  Lelianna seems to be talking about chantry control over mages and magic as though it were divine right....and that's completely contrary to the Lelianna I remember talking with my mage warden, or even her byplay with Wynne or even Morrigan (who she didn't especially like but never treated with this sort of IMHO off-hand contempt).

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.

Yet during the metastoryline, Lelianna's (apparent) number 2 woman (Cassandra) is desperately trying to find the Champion to find the peaceful solution?  Something seems out of joint here which is why I am asking as politely as I can.

-Polaris

[Oneiropolos]

Well, It IS the internet...clearly you need a list. I mean, CLEARLY, Hepler endorses bestiality because Varric lists that whole sheep thing with a bunch of more minor things, and she's never posted on the boards to go "Hey, Bestiality is bad and it's animal abuse. DON'T DO IT".

...ow. I just hurt my brain trying to use internet logic. (And dear God, I'm SO joking about Hepler endorsing bestiality. There's been so much rampant insanity in this thread, I'm kinda sad that I have to specify that I'm joking, but I am!)

[Vormaerin]

AlexXIV wrote...

Well I thought I read it between the lines, but I could probably have read it wrong. In which case I apologize.

The whole deal with saying they are free, just stripped of the desire to use their freedom. And they can be creative, if there was a logical reason kinda sounded like an excuse for me. I mean one can't take people's motivation to do something and then say 'Well they could do it, if they had any motivation'. I mean, you can say that, but that's not right in my eyes.

The problem is that you are the one claiming they don't have motivations and desires, when they objectively do.  They don't have EMOTIVE desires and motivations.   They just have physical and intellectual ones, which is pretty limited.

They seem obedient because there is rarely any reason not to be.  If you don't have an emotional reaction of dislike for a task and aren't doing anything else, why not comply?    They clearly can say "no".   The guy in the Fereldan Tower told Wynne "No" when she wanted him to leave the Tower.  He said he'd rather stay where he was and clean up.

[AlexXIV]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Well considering terror means fear, and a terrorist is someone who causes fear I'd say there is a rather broad definition of the term. I am sure Cerberus causes fear to some people, and so did Anders. I think some people just think that since 9/11 terrorism equals blowing up buildings with people in it.

[Oneiropolos]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Oneiropolos wrote...

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?

He's probably going to kill all the mages in DA3 after this thread is said and done. We're never going to find out what Anders real name is. I'm never going to see my mage revolution or find out what happened to my Surana Warden and Morrigan. No Magi Renissance.

*laughs* Your post just seriously cracked me up. Lesson to be learned: Be wary of irking the lead writer too badly. 

[IanPolaris]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

I don't agree with you very often, but I do here.  I agree by the technical definition mages aren't slaves, but I still will argue (based on the game lore and my understanding of freewill) that tranquil are.

As for Anders, I will happily label him a terrorist.  He is.  I challenge anyone to call me "anti-mage" though.

-Polaris

[Vormaerin]

IanPolaris wrote...

Yet during the metastoryline, Lelianna's (apparent) number 2 woman (Cassandra) is desperately trying to find the Champion to find the peaceful solution?  Something seems out of joint here which is why I am asking as politely as I can.

-Polaris

Obviously, I'm not Gaider.   I'd be surprised if he spoiled the story by answering, but who knows?   However, I took that line to mean "There'll be war and mayhem everywhere if there is a successful revolt" rather than some kind of statement of "OMG, mages are evil and must stay caged".

Its also Leilana after years of who knows what.  Its not like she hasn't changed her stripes before.   She was once an assassin, then a priestess, then a happy go lucky adventurer, and now a Seeker...

Or maybe she was always a seeker and really evil

[Camenae]

I'm surprised Mr. Gaider kept with this thread for so long. Does he have a lot of experience dealing with very very young children (who are probably putting us to shame right now)?

[jlb524]

Anders vs. Cerberus

Anders wants to free a group of people that are obviously oppressed...

Cerberus wants to elevate a group of people that are not being oppressed.....b/c they feel these people are better than the other.

Not the same...

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Oneiropolos wrote...

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?

He's probably going to kill all the mages in DA3 after this thread is said and done. We're never going to find out what Anders real name is. I'm never going to see my mage revolution or find out what happened to my Surana Warden and Morrigan. No Magi Renissance.

You joke, but that's exactly what I think will happen.  I've seen the handwriting on th wall since even before DA2 was published and DA2 just confirmed this suspicion in my own eyes.

-Polaris

[Namuri]

Kay, I don't even understand the arguments anymore 8D;
This seems like it's just degenerated to attacking each other.
gonna go to bed.

[Darth Krytie]

AlexXIV wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Well considering terror means fear, and a terrorist is someone who causes fear I'd say there is a rather broad definition of the term. I am sure Cerberus causes fear to some people, and so did Anders. I think some people just think that since 9/11 terrorism equals blowing up buildings with people in it.

Denotation is not the only thing that matters with word choice, but also connotation.

[upsettingshorts]

AlexXIV wrote...

Well considering terror means fear, and a terrorist is someone who causes fear I'd say there is a rather broad definition of the term. I am sure Cerberus causes fear to some people, and so did Anders.

Such broad, vague, literal definitions are misleading.  Terrorism exploits fear of or action use of violence against noncombatants for political gain.  Cerberus may scare people, but that's collateral damage.  They always have reasons beyond simply terrifying people to advance their agenda.  They just don't really care if people die, or if they get scared.   To them, it's justified by the mission, it isn't the mission in of itself.

AlexXIV wrote...

I think some people just think that since 9/11 terrorism equals blowing up buildings with people in it.

Sure, and if Anders had flown two giant flaming dragons into the Chantry - I don't think too many people would be disputing the label.  But what he did wasn't any different, he just used a different mechanism. 

Beyond the act itself, the explanation Anders himself offers reminded me quite a bit of phrases I read in The Looming Tower.  Stuff about death being preferable to living with the status quo, people needing to be forced to choose a side, the removal of any possibility of compromise - none of this is unique to people with righteous moral causes.  Similar rhetoric is used all the time, by noble revolutionaries and people we as society view as utterly reprehensible.  

It's not that his cause is or isn't just, that's not something I tend to get involved in discussing, but the tactics he used to advance his cause are clear.  They have a term we can use, accurately, to define them.  To attempt to describe what he does as more palatable does a disservice to the choices demanded of Hawke - appear to (or actively) endorse either Meredith's police state, or Anders' terrorism.   Not everyone - in fact, I'd say most people - would bother to or have the capabiltiy to understand the nuances of either position.  Like Cassandra before learning the truth from Varric, people will associate Hawke with what he did, not why he did it.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 avril 2011 - 08:47 .

[borelocin]

Anders killed large numbers of non-combatants in a stealth attack using weapons of mass destruction to try and bring about a political outcome.

Governments do this in many wars and talk about the "greater good". When individuals or private groups do the same they are inevitably called "terrorists".

The usual justification is the number of lives OF YOUR FACTION it will save. If we bomb X it will save Y lives on our side.

[IanPolaris]

Vormaerin wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Yet during the metastoryline, Lelianna's (apparent) number 2 woman (Cassandra) is desperately trying to find the Champion to find the peaceful solution?  Something seems out of joint here which is why I am asking as politely as I can.

-Polaris

Obviously, I'm not Gaider.   I'd be surprised if he spoiled the story by answering, but who knows?   However, I took that line to mean "There'll be war and mayhem everywhere if there is a successful revolt" rather than some kind of statement of "OMG, mages are evil and must stay caged".

Its also Leilana after years of who knows what.  Its not like she hasn't changed her stripes before.   She was once an assassin, then a priestess, then a happy go lucky adventurer, and now a Seeker...

Or maybe she was always a seeker and really evil

You may be right about the last point....if so, and if Lelianna really is the spiteful and distrustful wench (at least IMHO) that she comes across as in the DLC scene with Sebastian, then I wish I had killed her in DAO and I'll leave it at that.

-Polaris

[Vormaerin]

IanPolaris wrote...

that tranquil are.

-Polaris

At this point, I think its really just a matter of us not understanding the full implications of the magic. The Rite of Tranquility cuts them off from the Fade, which is apparently the source of emotion in some way.   Its not like anything we can compare to in the real world to say what the exact effects are.

[upsettingshorts]

jlb524 wrote...

Anders vs. Cerberus

Anders wants to free a group of people that are obviously oppressed...

Cerberus wants to elevate a group of people that are not being oppressed.....b/c they feel these people are better than the other.

Not the same...

Here's what I'm talking about.

I said Cerberus weren't terrorists, and Anders was.

I said not a word about their motives, whether or not their cause was just, or if their causes mattered at all.

Yet, here they are being compared on just those terms.

[AlexXIV]

Vormaerin wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Well I thought I read it between the lines, but I could probably have read it wrong. In which case I apologize.

The whole deal with saying they are free, just stripped of the desire to use their freedom. And they can be creative, if there was a logical reason kinda sounded like an excuse for me. I mean one can't take people's motivation to do something and then say 'Well they could do it, if they had any motivation'. I mean, you can say that, but that's not right in my eyes.

The problem is that you are the one claiming they don't have motivations and desires, when they objectively do.  They don't have EMOTIVE desires and motivations.   They just have physical and intellectual ones, which is pretty limited.

They seem obedient because there is rarely any reason not to be.  If you don't have an emotional reaction of dislike for a task and aren't doing anything else, why not comply?    They clearly can say "no".   The guy in the Fereldan Tower told Wynne "No" when she wanted him to leave the Tower.  He said he'd rather stay where he was and clean up.

I am not even going to discuss dialogues. This scene was meant to show how they act on logic and not emotion. Which I cannot really follow there because my emotions as well as my logic and common sense would tell me that it is saver with the mages downstairs than staying up there all alone and cleaning up the room. I mean why does have cleaning the room have any priority in this situation anyway? Could as well be a sign of shock. Like people who just had a car accident sometimes seem 'too calm' or talking about unimportant things.

[IanPolaris]

Like I said before, I have no problem with calling Anders a terrorist. He destroyed/murdered many innocents (of which I do NOT count the grand cleric) to generate an expected (and predictable) overreaction from KC Meredith for explilicit politica gain (to make the mages actually fight to be free by removing all choice). Anders even proudly says this.

He's a terrorist. No question. His motives might be just and he might even be right (I think Anders in spite of being possessed/insane is more right than wrong on the mage queston), but that doesn't change what he is.

-Polaris

[Vormaerin]

AlexXIV wrote...
This scene was meant to show how they act on logic and not emotion. .

Ah.  Sorry, I didn't realize you had access to the script notes and writer commentary.  I won't challenge your superior understanding of what being cut off from the Fade means again.  I didn't get to that chapter in my Psych textbook yet.  My apologies.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 03 avril 2011 - 08:50 .

[jlb524]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Anders vs. Cerberus

Anders wants to free a group of people that are obviously oppressed...

Cerberus wants to elevate a group of people that are not being oppressed.....b/c they feel these people are better than the other.

Not the same...

Here's what I'm talking about.

I said Cerberus weren't terrorists, and Anders was.

I said not a word about their motives, whether or not their cause was just, or if their causes mattered at all.

Yet, here they are being compared on just those terms.

I feel they are both terrorist but one is justified while the other is not....Anders does not support mages ruling.  Cerberus ultimately wants humans to dictate power.