1927 réponses à ce sujet

[Deztyn]

adhjsahf!

Sorry.

It's just after reading and participating in a few too many of the "Chantry is EBUL!" arguments, I'm shocked to see you make even the slightest suggestion that the Qun would be better. Or perceived as better. In universe or out.

I'm inclined to think the collars, the leashes, the whole talking means death thing would probably be considered a little bit worse than being restricted to your room now and again and keeping your head down around the meaner templars. Even if theoretically they may be valued more under the Qun.

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

Well because they are to busy in a struggle fighting for their freedom against Templars so their numbers would inevitably be diminishing at an unknown rate.. The Qunari are far far more prepared now than they were last time as well... Things aren't exactly looking good for the mages, just because they beat the Qunari last time, who were less prepared and the mages weren't fighting the templars as well.. And the mages weren't in disunity. doesn't mean they can this time.

We have no idea what type of unity the Circles of Magi may have with one another. We're pretty much in the dark about the current state of affairs involving the Circles, the templars, and the Seekers. What little we do know just allows us to be aware of the fact that the Circles broke free, the templars stopped taking orders, and the Seekers might be hunting the mages. If the Qunari try to invade, the Andrastian nations are going to respond with their armies. It's not going to simply be an issue of the Qunari v. the Magi.

Here is how I see it playing out.

1.  Mages and Templars go to war (already apparenlty staring to happen).

2.  Shortly into it, the Qunari invade not just Tevinter (who promply howls for help) but via their advanced navy bypassing Tevinter and invading Thedas proper sparing only the Anderfels out of respect for the Grey Wardens.

3.  The Divine prompty calls for an Exalted March and the Templars say "Hell with you" 

After a while at some point the most beleagured natons (Free Marches, Rivaine, Nevarra) finally say "enough" and try to forge a secular alliance with al other nations that will help, bypassing the Chantry entirely.  It is on that basis that the mage-heavy Royal Army of Fereldan (with copius use of battlemagic...much of it questionalbe) wins the first major battle (a holding action) against the Qunari....but that victory comes at a cost.  The Mages in general not only want but DEMAND that they be given the rights granted to them in Fereldan, namely the right to be free citizens with a say in their own regulation.

Then the proverbial fecal matter hits the fan because I can easily see the Northern Nations defying their own powerful Templars because it's give in to the Fereldan mage's demans or fall to the Quanari, and the Divine goes Ape.

Just my own unsupported speculation.

-Polaris

[sphinxess]

XxDeonxX wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

I doubt it.. The Qunari are far more prepared than they were last time and the rest of thedas (excluding tevinter) Is far less prepaired.. They will loose their independance and their freedom by the looks of things.. It was mentioned somewhere in DA2 that they have been holding off and building their forces so they have been given about 150 years.The time between germanys official founding and WW1 when they had power to rival the rest of Europe was not even that long.. So the Qunari threat is far more serious than Thedas realises

Sure they might be able to beat the templars, which is still in itself a gamble since the Templars are trained to deal with mages.. But still possible, but then there is the Qunari threat to deal with..

I don't see why you think they'll lose. We have no idea what the status quo is. The Chantry lost the Circles, the templars stopped taking orders, and the Seekers possibly left the Chantry to hunt the mages. If mages were a valuable element of winning against the Qunari armies during the New Exalted Marches because their magical ability could deal with the Qunari's advanced technology, I don't see why they would necessarily lose when the Qunari's own mages can never match the power and ability of the Circle of Magi.

Well because they are to busy in a struggle fighting for their freedom against Templars so their numbers would inevitably be diminishing at an unknown rate.. The Qunari are far far more prepared now than they were last time as well... Things aren't exactly looking good for the mages, just because they beat the Qunari last time, who were less prepared and the mages weren't fighting the templars as well.. And the mages weren't in disunity. doesn't mean they can this time.

I pretty much ignored Anders - did he have the secret of gunpowder? what exactly was the mage bomb he used and can more be made if a war breaks out?

[Darth Krytie]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I say should because there are no - or indeed very few - such examples of posters trying to rationalize what Meredith did as something more benign and palatable because they support her cause. It would be unjust (heh) to hold Anders to a different standard for whatever reason people end up doing so - either because they support his cause, romanced his character, or just like cats.

It just seems like when the terrorism word is sidestepped or handwaved it's by posters who want the story to be something it isn't, because it makes them feel better about it when it's something it's not, or they simply don't have the experience of dealing with such concepts in a way that isn't personal and uncomfortable. It isn't always like that, but it often is.  However, that doesn't change the content of the game.

But yes, it is a tricky position.  And I get that what I'm doing is preaching, I just pick the topics over which I do so carefully.  This is one of them.

Ultimately, it comes down to how people relate to actions. Anders, agree or not, destroys the Chantry because he sees the Chantry as either part of the problem or a hinderence to his larger goal. Actually, it's both, from his words. Skewed as it may be and agree with it or not, most people can at least understand where he is coming from.

Meredith merely uses Anders actions to take an action against uninvolved people. It's hard for people to see that point of view. It's hard for anyone to sympathise with her position or understand her larger goal, even if they hold her way of going about with distate.

So, in the end, Anders is a terrorist or a revolutionary or a freedom fighter or a martyr, who killed innocents while seeking a larger, more noble goal.  Meredith is always going to be that jerk who wanted to use Anders as an excuse to execute already oppressed people.

Modifié par Darth Krytie, 03 avril 2011 - 10:21 .

[AlexXIV]

sphinxess wrote...
I pretty much ignored Anders - did he have the secret of gunpowder? what exactly was the mage bomb he used and can more be made if a war breaks out?

I am not sure, but the dwarf in Vigil Keep could make explosives. So I guess that's where Anders got it from. Or somewhere else we don't know.

[Lianaar]

For the mages it might be smarter to oppose the Qunari first, and then step up as heros that saved people from the Qunary and then demand rights based on their actions. Becuase then they have support otherwise they would lose.

You might want to argue about how to distribute a cake, but it might cost you making the cake.
You can also pick first making the cake and then decide to share it with others or not....

[IanPolaris]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I say should because there are no - or indeed very few - such examples of posters trying to rationalize what Meredith did as something more benign and palatable because they support her cause. It would be unjust (heh) to hold Anders to a different standard for whatever reason people end up doing so - either because they support his cause, romanced his character, or just like cats.

It just seems like when the terrorism word is sidestepped or handwaved it's by posters who want the story to be something it isn't, because it makes them feel better about it when it's something it's not, or they simply don't have the experience of dealing with such concepts in a way that isn't personal and uncomfortable. It isn't always like that, but it often is.  However, that doesn't change the content of the game.

But yes, it is a tricky position.  And I get that what I'm doing is preaching, I just pick the topics over which I do so carefully.  This is one of them.

I will give you a rare kudos from me, because just this once (or rarely anyway) we are in accord.  Anders is a terrorist and needs to be viewed as such whether you agree with his overall stance (which I do) or you don't.  Just because I agree with his motivation doesn't make he hesitate in the slightest about giving him high justice as champion as Kirkwell since it seems as Champion I am the only one that seems to be interested in punishing the actual crime with the actual guilty party responsible (a point Prince Sebastian makes quite eloquantely).

-Polaris

[jlb524]

Mr.House wrote...

Anders should have blown up the Templar hall, not the Chantry filled with innocent people WHO ARE NOT EVEN PART OF THE WAR.

How wrong....and naive.

[LobselVith8]

sphinxess wrote...

I pretty much ignored Anders - did he have the secret of gunpowder? what exactly was the mage bomb he used and can more be made if a war breaks out?

Ingredients from across Kirkwall. I assume Dworkin the Mad taught him how to make such an explosive. I'd imagine it could be useful against the enemies of the mages.

[AlexXIV]

Darth Krytie wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I say should because there are no - or indeed very few - such examples of posters trying to rationalize what Meredith did as something more benign and palatable because they support her cause. It would be unjust (heh) to hold Anders to a different standard for whatever reason people end up doing so - either because they support his cause, romanced his character, or just like cats.

It just seems like when the terrorism word is sidestepped or handwaved it's by posters who want the story to be something it isn't, because it makes them feel better about it when it's something it's not, or they simply don't have the experience of dealing with such concepts in a way that isn't personal and uncomfortable. It isn't always like that, but it often is.  However, that doesn't change the content of the game.

But yes, it is a tricky position.  And I get that what I'm doing is preaching, I just pick the topics over which I do so carefully.  This is one of them.

Ultimately, it comes down to how people relate to actions. Anders, agree or not, destroys the Chantry because he sees the Chantry as either part of the problem or a hinderence to his larger goal. Actually, it's both, from his words. Skewed as it may be and agree with it or not, most people can at least understand where he is coming from.

Meredith merely uses Anders actions to take an action against uninvolved people. It's hard for people to see that point of view. It's hard for anyone to sympathise with her position or understand her larger goal, even if they hold her way of going about with distates.

So, in the end, Anders is a terrorist or a revolutionary or a freedom fighter or a martyr, who killed innocents while seeking a larger, more noble goal.  Meredith is always going to be that jerk who wanted to use Anders as an excuse to excute already oppressed people.

I'd have to agree. Anders, despite what he did, is more sympathetic (to me anyway) than Meredith.

[upsettingshorts]

Zealots don't really believe in the concept of a noncombatant or innocent. Sides have been or must be chosen.

That's kinda why my Hawke didn't like them. On either side.

AlexXIV wrote...

I'd have to agree. Anders, despite what he did, is more sympathetic (to me anyway) than Meredith.

Yeah but that's not really what I was trying to get at.  But I'm too tired to explain.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 avril 2011 - 10:22 .

[Dave of Canada]

Darth Krytie wrote...

So, in the end, Anders is a terrorist or a revolutionary or a freedom fighter or a martyr

There is no "or", he IS a terrorist. He can be more than one thing, just because he's a terrorist doesn't stop him from being a freedom fighter/martyr or whatever else. 

[AlexXIV]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Zealots don't really believe in the concept of a noncombatant or innocent. Sides have been or must be chosen.

That's kinda why my Hawke didn't like them. On either side.

That's why my Hawke wanted to walk away from this mess. But obviously the plot wouldn't let her.

So I sided with the mages not because I agree more with their side, but because I would not let my Hawke slay innocents.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 avril 2011 - 10:25 .

[Lianaar]

I liked Varric's opinion: I think I am fed up with templars and mages He was a voice of reason often enough in the game.

I am actually trying to think on a character that would go with Anders' idea, endorse his action and support him in all of this. It is not easy for me, but maybe not impossible.

Modifié par Lianaar, 03 avril 2011 - 10:24 .

[IanPolaris]

Lianaar wrote...

For the mages it might be smarter to oppose the Qunari first, and then step up as heros that saved people from the Qunary and then demand rights based on their actions. Becuase then they have support otherwise they would lose.

You might want to argue about how to distribute a cake, but it might cost you making the cake.
You can also pick first making the cake and then decide to share it with others or not....

I hear you, but the options change if you expect to die.  That's the position that Thedas' circle of magi now face.  They are expect to be killed by either the Templars or a vengeful Chantry in an exalted march (and given "Sister Nightengale's replies to Sebastian during his Act 3 quest, this is a very logical and reasonable assumption on the part of the mages).

So if you as a Chantry seeker try to say,"The Qunari are going to treat you worse."  They'll say (with justification because of Merith), "Bolloxs.  We helped he Chantry before and all it got is a thousand years of unjust imprisonment and now your own Templars want to openly execute us when they can.  Why should we help you.  If we're goingto die, we'll enjoy watching the Qunari bring you down as well."

There's not much you can say to that, because ultimately whether the Chantry wants to admit this or not, it's really the unvarnished truth....an it's why the Seekers are browning their trousers and why they want to find the Champion so desperately at least IMHO.

-Polaris

[AlexXIV]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

So, in the end, Anders is a terrorist or a revolutionary or a freedom fighter or a martyr

There is no "or", he IS a terrorist. He can be more than one thing, just because he's a terrorist doesn't stop him from being a freedom fighter/martyr or whatever else. 

No. You see him as a terrorist, others don't. Your definition or opinion is not more valuable than others. I don't think 'terrorist' is a term people in Thedas even use. At least I have not heard it yet.

[Darth Krytie]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

So, in the end, Anders is a terrorist or a revolutionary or a freedom fighter or a martyr

There is no "or", he IS a terrorist. He can be more than one thing, just because he's a terrorist doesn't stop him from being a freedom fighter/martyr or whatever else. 

I was listing the common ways people have of perceiving his actions and using a literary device to express this.

[upsettingshorts]

He is a terrorist and a revolutionary. Whether or not you care about the former or the latter more depends on your perspective, but he is both.

Any "others" who would deny that he is either of those things either has an agenda or doesn't understand the point of making the argument that he is both in the first place.  It comes down to ends and means.  It's not a question of ends vs. ends or means vs. means - that wouldn't make any sense though that is where many posters minds end up going.  There has to be both, because one doesn't happen independent of the other.  They are intertwined because one is a tactic and method, the other is a motivation and goal.  Do the ends justify the means?  That's the point, and that's what we as players are left to decide. 

The problem - from where I sit, anyway - is when we deny the means when discussing one point of view (the mages) and then concentrate solely on them discussing the other (templars).  Though I don't think there's too much of that going on here, it is pretty common.  Or at least was.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 avril 2011 - 10:32 .

[IanPolaris]

sphinxess wrote...
I pretty much ignored Anders - did he have the secret of gunpowder? what exactly was the mage bomb he used and can more be made if a war breaks out?

In DAA Dworkin, (the Dwarven Architect's brother) had the secret to Sa'ar Gatlock, or gunpowder as we'd say.  Anders could have easily learned it from him.

-Polaris

[Augustei]

AlexXIV wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

So, in the end, Anders is a terrorist or a revolutionary or a freedom fighter or a martyr

There is no "or", he IS a terrorist. He can be more than one thing, just because he's a terrorist doesn't stop him from being a freedom fighter/martyr or whatever else. 

No. You see him as a terrorist, others don't. Your definition or opinion is not more valuable than others. I don't think 'terrorist' is a term people in Thedas even use. At least I have not heard it yet.

Terrorism
[ter-uh-riz-uhm]–noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
He seems to match this description.

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 03 avril 2011 - 10:28 .

[IanPolaris]

Indeed, Anders is using violence against a soft target to incide anger/rage/emotions in order to achieve a political end. You bet your bottom dollar he's a terrorist!

-Polaris

[Lianaar]

@Ian
You presume awful lot. Just like there is no "all mages are bloodmages", there is also no "all templars kill mages at sight". It is just not how life works. Mages are just as "unified" as chantry or templars, aka not at all. A bunch of people with different flow of thoughts come together for some purposes. Cullan stepped up against Meredith. Why? If all templars are out to hunt down mages? How about Thrask? How about all the templars that were in a rebellion against Meredith with the mages? How about Carver if he survived?

You paradigma is: mages either die by templars or accept the Qun.
I think there are way more room for mages to move in.

There is no Chantry, Templars and Mages. There are people of the chantry, mothers, sisters, there are knight commanders, templars, and mages. I can not see Bethany or Wynne running to the Qun to save their lives. I can rather see them fight alongside the templars to save the general population from being killed (since the Qunary kill anyone or force them to be mindless workers if they don't agree to the Qun). Though admittedly, the mindless worker part only comes from Fenris, and I am not sure how trustworthy he is. I took him as such in the topic of Qun.

I would also point out that not all mages are selfish enough to want to see the world fall just so they can laugh saying: see? You died without me. I think quite a few mages have other people they care for. Biased from me to hope such, correct.

[sphinxess]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

So, in the end, Anders is a terrorist or a revolutionary or a freedom fighter or a martyr

There is no "or", he IS a terrorist. He can be more than one thing, just because he's a terrorist doesn't stop him from being a freedom fighter/martyr or whatever else. 

Or history could be written that the bombing of the Kirkwall chantry was the first blow in the dragon age mage-templar war - kinda a boston teaparty deal

[Darth Krytie]

And people calling him a freedom fighter or a revolutionary in lieu of terrorist are not inherently wrong. And it doesn't mean that Anders actions aren't terrorism. It's basically a more palatable euphemism because they agree with the motivation.

[AlexXIV]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

He is a terrorist and a revolutionary. Whether or not you care about the former or the latter more depends on your perspective, but he is both.

Any "others" who would deny that he is either of those things either has an agenda or doesn't understand the point of making the argument that he is both in the first place.  Though I don't think there's too much of that going on here, it is pretty common.  Or at least was.

I don't like the term terrorism because it has in my opinion nothing lost in the world of Dragon Age. And people automatically connect it with real life terrorists and all implications. You can label him mass murderer for all I care. I don't deny that what he did was an act of terrorism. I just don't think anyone in Thedas would call him terrorist, and that's basically why I don't want to do that either.